All 1 Baroness Butler-Sloss contributions to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019

Read Bill Ministerial Extracts

Mon 8th Apr 2019
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts
Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th April 2019

(5 years, 7 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 8 April 2019 - (8 Apr 2019)
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The amendment says, “nothing … prevents”, which I suppose could be said to be saying that the royal prerogative exists—so to that extent it is unnecessary—but it restricts what the Prime Minister can do in its final words. That is my answer to my noble and learned friend.

The wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, at Second Reading about the constitution are particularly relevant in this context. One of the repeated observations from the EU is that it wants to know what the UK wants. In the context of this Bill, it will ask the reasons for the extension. What answer is the Prime Minister supposed to give, acting as an agent for this disunited Parliament?

This amendment is a worthwhile attempt to clarify the mandate, which apparently the Prime Minister has by virtue of this Bill, but I doubt it is necessary, for the reasons I have given, and I suggest that the House thinks long and hard before making such an important change.

Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
- Hansard - -

Will the noble Lord answer the points of concern of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as to why Amendment 7 is needed?

Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I do not want to misrepresent what the noble Lord said, but he suggested that there might be some legal uncertainty and that, theoretically at least, I or some other barrister might be instructed to argue something in court, and this is to avoid legal uncertainty. I am all for avoiding legal uncertainty, but the existence of the royal prerogative can surely not be in doubt, and this is, I suggest, an attempt to fetter that royal prerogative.

I finish with this observation. Lord Reed, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, said in the Gina Miller case of the royal prerogative that the,

“the value of unanimity, strength and dispatch in the conduct of foreign affairs are as evident in the 21st century as they were in the 18th”.

This Bill and this amendment substantially undermine that strength.