0:00:00 > 0:00:01seriously. -- we have now had a meeting. It is unconstitutional, and
0:00:01 > 0:00:05we will take extreme action if a British citizen is being tortured.
0:00:05 > 0:00:16Order. Ten minute rule motion. Huw Merriman.Mr Speaker. I beg to move
0:00:16 > 0:00:21that lead be me to bring in a bill to provide automatic other
0:00:21 > 0:00:26compensation. My bill will ensure that passengers on trains, flights
0:00:26 > 0:00:32and other domestic transport systems automatically receive in the bank
0:00:32 > 0:00:37account the telly and we pay compensation due to them without
0:00:37 > 0:00:44further having regard to write and apply for them. The for reclaiming
0:00:44 > 0:00:51refunds for delays is complex and cumbersome. -- the mechanism for
0:00:51 > 0:00:56reclaim it. As we found with Reiner, the mechanism is often not explained
0:00:56 > 0:01:03correctly or at all to passengers. Technology should been listening to
0:01:03 > 0:01:08need -- should be listening the need for passenger confusion. This bill
0:01:08 > 0:01:16should apply to trance, Ferraris and other paid motor transport. First,
0:01:16 > 0:01:25we will turn to rear. I take the train daily to London. Last, nearly
0:01:25 > 0:01:2967 million real journeys were cancelled or significantly late.
0:01:29 > 0:01:35This can lead to lost output, financial output and -- financial
0:01:35 > 0:01:39hardship and stress. To get compensation would incentivise the
0:01:39 > 0:01:47trainer operators and Network Rail to prevent these issues from
0:01:47 > 0:01:52occurring in the first place. This would increase our nation's
0:01:52 > 0:01:55productivity. Whilst a number of steps have been taken in the last
0:01:55 > 0:02:00year, including strengthening consumer rights act of 2015, the
0:02:00 > 0:02:07introduction of delay we pay 15, for the Southern, and new franchises,
0:02:07 > 0:02:11only one third of rail passengers owed compensation make a claim.
0:02:11 > 0:02:15Network Rail currently makes payments to train operators for all
0:02:15 > 0:02:21delays which it has caused for track and infrastructure failures.
0:02:21 > 0:02:26However, if only one third of the passengers experiencing these delays
0:02:26 > 0:02:32claimed for it, the remainder must be retained for by the train
0:02:32 > 0:02:40operators. My bill would make the train operators to ring fence this
0:02:40 > 0:02:45excess. It would have every passenger to touch on and off the
0:02:45 > 0:02:48train. Having preregistered account details, the passenger would
0:02:48 > 0:02:54automatically receive compensation under bank account in the day they
0:02:54 > 0:03:00were convenient. None of this should be particularly complicated. Six of
0:03:00 > 0:03:07the 27 train operators have certain kinds of compensation for certain
0:03:07 > 0:03:13passengers. Virgin Trains West Coast offer it to passengers that book
0:03:13 > 0:03:20directly, call the Thames Link and CTC offer automatic compensation
0:03:20 > 0:03:25season to pick -- forces ticket holders.
0:03:32 > 0:03:37Every passenger is entitled to compensation. If the technology
0:03:37 > 0:03:42exists, then it must be applied to all. Where compensation is not going
0:03:42 > 0:03:46to be passenger, the taxpayer funded compensation comment from Network
0:03:46 > 0:03:52Rail must be used by all train operators to get us to place were
0:03:52 > 0:03:54compensation is automatically delivered to every passenger so
0:03:54 > 0:04:00entitled. Let me now turn to flights. The situation is arguably
0:04:00 > 0:04:06worse with airlines, as the recent tobacco with Ryanair demonstrated.
0:04:06 > 0:04:13With flights being cancelled and 3000 passengers and left
0:04:13 > 0:04:20out-of-pocket completely. However, the company's website field to
0:04:20 > 0:04:26mention compensation, mentioning only it would comply with the EU
0:04:26 > 0:04:30regulation. Unless the passenger happens to be an expert, they would
0:04:30 > 0:04:34not realise that this provides compensation and assistance to
0:04:34 > 0:04:40passengers in the event of being denied boarding, cancellations,
0:04:40 > 0:04:44delays and downgrading when flying. It took the Civil Aviation Authority
0:04:44 > 0:04:49to threaten enforcement besiegers before Ryanair informed their
0:04:49 > 0:04:54customers of the compensation rights. This is not new ground. In
0:04:54 > 0:04:59the last six years it has successfully taken action against
0:04:59 > 0:05:03another of airlines, including Ryanair, for a range of issues
0:05:03 > 0:05:06including non-payment of compensation and providing limited
0:05:06 > 0:05:11information for passengers. All of this can be avoided. Putting the
0:05:11 > 0:05:15onus on the airline to calculate compensation and credit it
0:05:15 > 0:05:20automatically must be possible. For security reasons, every airline must
0:05:20 > 0:05:24know which flight a passenger is picked on and know whether it has
0:05:24 > 0:05:28been delayed or cancelled. The also note the passenger account details,
0:05:28 > 0:05:35or they can find it via the flight booking agency. I picked this
0:05:35 > 0:05:38contention to the chief executive of British Airways when he was before
0:05:38 > 0:05:43the committee last month. I asked him why automatic compensation could
0:05:43 > 0:05:49not be brought into his industry. His response was to state as
0:05:49 > 0:05:54follows, we will pass that cost onto the consumer, like we always do. We
0:05:54 > 0:06:02do operate as a charity. Mr Speaker, this defensive response was
0:06:02 > 0:06:08revealing. It suggests that there to be a cost to pass on, many
0:06:08 > 0:06:10passengers are not claiming for delays or cancellations because they
0:06:10 > 0:06:18do not know the full rights or find it to cumbersome to claim. We do not
0:06:18 > 0:06:23know. It seems, from the Chief Executive of British Airways, we are
0:06:23 > 0:06:28unlikely to find out without a change of approach or a change in
0:06:28 > 0:06:32the adulation. When I asked in what proportion of passengers claim and
0:06:32 > 0:06:37are repaid for compensation, he remarked, I am not prepared to
0:06:37 > 0:06:41disclose that. That is commercially sensitive. Despite my repeated
0:06:41 > 0:06:46requests as why this would give his rivals the upper hand, no additional
0:06:46 > 0:06:51information was forthcoming. The previous week we transport select
0:06:51 > 0:06:54committee had heard from the Secretary of State for Transport
0:06:54 > 0:06:58who, I should add does an excellent job and I hope the adoption of this
0:06:58 > 0:07:03bill by the Government will further his assent to these guys. I asked
0:07:03 > 0:07:08the Secretary of State on his views on automatic compensation. The
0:07:08 > 0:07:12Secretary of State took the view that, this is not a one size fits
0:07:12 > 0:07:17all industry. It is a big step for Government to intervene to tell
0:07:17 > 0:07:22businesses how to operate. If there is a compelling reason to do so,
0:07:22 > 0:07:26Government acts sometimes. Mr Speaker, this summarises the
0:07:26 > 0:07:35justification... Sorry, summarises the situation. The airline industry
0:07:35 > 0:07:40has to adopt a one size fits all approach from rules driven by the UK
0:07:40 > 0:07:49border agency, the several aviation authority, the European Union and
0:07:49 > 0:07:53other regulators. I believe they can take this additional step and train
0:07:53 > 0:07:59operators and those running our ferries, trams and other modes of
0:07:59 > 0:08:02transport can do likewise. The compelling reason for parliament and
0:08:02 > 0:08:07Government to do so is millions of passengers are not only being
0:08:07 > 0:08:11inconvenienced by delays but are not being compensated. It is time for
0:08:11 > 0:08:15those responsible to the passenger to give something back without
0:08:15 > 0:08:20further work from the passenger. I thank the 50 honourable members and
0:08:20 > 0:08:25right honourable members in this place, many of whom are here this
0:08:25 > 0:08:29afternoon, who have pledged their support this proposal. It follows
0:08:29 > 0:08:32the moral of approval across the House when I asked the Prime
0:08:32 > 0:08:38Minister to support this change. There are many things that this
0:08:38 > 0:08:43place will not allow us to deliver, there is one change that the
0:08:43 > 0:08:47consumer will benefit from us working together across party in
0:08:47 > 0:08:53parliament to change this approach. Order, the question is he has lead
0:08:53 > 0:09:08to bring in the bill. The ayes have it.Who will bring in the bill?
0:09:08 > 0:09:16Maria Caulfield, Douglas Chapman, Lillian Greenwood, Peter Kyle, then
0:09:16 > 0:09:28Lake, Caroline Lucas, Tim Louden, Ian Stewart and myself, sir.Hugh
0:09:28 > 0:09:33Merryman.
0:09:41 > 0:09:51--Hugh Merriman.
0:09:51 > 0:09:56Automatic travel compensation bill. Second reading what day?Friday the
0:09:56 > 0:10:0416th of March. Friday the 16th of March 2000 and 18. Thank you.Point
0:10:04 > 0:10:11of order. I have had so many people come up to me and say, are you all
0:10:11 > 0:10:17write or had you been abducted? I should explain why I was not here.
0:10:17 > 0:10:26It was my own incompetence and nothing more than that.Well, that
0:10:26 > 0:10:35is very gracious, extremely welcome and almost certainly unprecedented.
0:10:35 > 0:10:39Unprecedented for the honourable gentleman to be incompetent and
0:10:39 > 0:10:45unprecedented for him to profess his own, indeed. Nevertheless, we are
0:10:45 > 0:10:49delighted that the honourable gentleman is in fine freckle,
0:10:49 > 0:10:56physically, mentally and doubtless spiritually as well. If there are no
0:10:56 > 0:11:01further points of order, the clerk will now proceed to read the orders
0:11:01 > 0:11:10of the do.European Union withdrawal bill committee. Now.Order.
0:11:31 > 0:11:42Order.European Union withdrawal bill.We begin with new clause 16 it
0:11:42 > 0:11:48will be convenient to consider other classes and amendments as set out in
0:11:48 > 0:11:55the selection paper. Clause five and schedule one. Mr Chris Leslie to
0:11:55 > 0:12:04move new clause 16.Thank you and I think as we start today three of the
0:12:04 > 0:12:08committee stage of the withdrawal bill, it is important to note this
0:12:08 > 0:12:14group of amendments have a number of things in common, largely to do with
0:12:14 > 0:12:18the rights and freedoms that many of our citizens have and have enjoyed
0:12:18 > 0:12:25and taken for granted. Which could well be in jeopardy or could well be
0:12:25 > 0:12:32threatened if we do not get this process rights. Of course, the bill
0:12:32 > 0:12:37we are debating today it was supposed to be merely a copy and
0:12:37 > 0:12:41paste piece of legislation that we were told there was no fundamental
0:12:41 > 0:12:47changes of Government policy, it was all very straightforward. We are
0:12:47 > 0:12:49leaving the European Union and becoming a freestanding United
0:12:49 > 0:12:55Kingdom and we will simply cut and paste all of the regulations and as
0:12:55 > 0:13:00they stand into UK law. However, you will notice, particularly in
0:13:00 > 0:13:07schedule one of this bill, there are a number of changes made that are
0:13:07 > 0:13:11not transposed and in particular, on the face of the bill in the quarters
0:13:11 > 0:13:19we are discussing, the Government have chosen not to bring across the
0:13:19 > 0:13:27charter of fundamental rights. With pleasure.When I was sitting in his
0:13:27 > 0:13:32place, Ministers, Labour Ministers, told us the charter would have no
0:13:32 > 0:13:37more influence in the United Kingdom than a copy of the Beano were the
0:13:37 > 0:13:41words used. It would not apply here. Does the honourable gentleman not
0:13:41 > 0:13:46look forward to a time when Labour Ministers said will be a greater
0:13:46 > 0:13:53approximation to truth?It turns out the Chancellor of fundamental rights
0:13:53 > 0:13:58does have a value. It does have effect within the UK and I will talk
0:13:58 > 0:14:05about practical examples of where we cannot just a brush this part of our
0:14:05 > 0:14:10current framework because currently there are many citizens, companies
0:14:10 > 0:14:13and other organisations who recognise the value that the charter
0:14:13 > 0:14:19of fundamental rights... I will give way in a moment.I am grateful to my
0:14:19 > 0:14:28honourable friend forgiving way. It is not an example of the use of the
0:14:28 > 0:14:31charter, the one given by my learn it friend when he referred to the
0:14:31 > 0:14:37case that the current Secretary of State for exiting the EU brought
0:14:37 > 0:14:43against the Government, in which he talked about the charter. If the man
0:14:43 > 0:14:49now thinks it has a use now, should that seem use not now be available?
0:14:49 > 0:14:54That man has stolen my punch line.I was going to build up to that. That
0:14:54 > 0:14:58was the one example that I thought would clinch the argument of all
0:14:58 > 0:15:04people who should value the charter, it should have been the Secretary of
0:15:04 > 0:15:10State for Exiting the European Union.The case for repealing it
0:15:10 > 0:15:15must be based on some harm that is done. I have never heard anybody
0:15:15 > 0:15:19describe any harm that the charter is supposed to have done to any
0:15:19 > 0:15:23public interest in this country. Presumably like me he waits were
0:15:23 > 0:15:28some examples to justify the proposed change.That is the case.
0:15:28 > 0:15:32In fact, we may hear more and there may be a different argument from
0:15:32 > 0:15:38Ministers that the Government have argued, do not worry about the
0:15:38 > 0:15:41charter of fundamental rights, like the honourable friend, it does not
0:15:41 > 0:15:45have any effect, it is not necessary, we can do without it. If
0:15:45 > 0:15:53that is the case, why are they deliberately exercising it from UK
0:15:53 > 0:16:00law? -- exercising at? Why would the include clause 16, which is on the
0:16:00 > 0:16:06front page of today's package and if they time to that, they can see that
0:16:06 > 0:16:12this new clause 16 does not even require that the fundamental rights
0:16:12 > 0:16:18are retained. It simply says that the Government should be required to
0:16:18 > 0:16:21lay a report before parliament within one month of Royal assent of
0:16:21 > 0:16:27this act to publish a review of the applications for removing that
0:16:27 > 0:16:33charter...I am grateful to him. Would you not agree that one
0:16:33 > 0:16:38advantage is we can export properly the impact of losing the access that
0:16:38 > 0:16:43the charter presents to you and conventions, on disabled people or
0:16:43 > 0:16:49the rights of the Child, which are not truly incorporated into UK law
0:16:49 > 0:16:52and will therefore be lost in the form they are accessible through the
0:16:52 > 0:16:59charter, as at present? Indeed, we need to have the detailed analysis
0:16:59 > 0:17:02from Ministers about the consequences of deleting this
0:17:02 > 0:17:10charter.The are potentially wide ranging. I want to pay tribute to my
0:17:10 > 0:17:15honourable friend for her tireless campaigning for children's rights.
0:17:15 > 0:17:22She has amendments down on the order paper and she will note that many
0:17:22 > 0:17:26organisations campaigning for children rights, the Children's
0:17:26 > 0:17:31Society in particular, have a number of anxieties about the deletion of
0:17:31 > 0:17:38the charter of rights and the lack of clarity that would exist in
0:17:38 > 0:17:40respect of protecting children, sometimes in vulnerable
0:17:40 > 0:17:47circumstances. I will give way.I'm really grateful to my good friend
0:17:47 > 0:17:50forgiving way. Is he concerned whether it still children in the
0:17:50 > 0:17:56world that are engaged in slave labour, they are still being
0:17:56 > 0:18:00trafficked, they are still working as child soldiers, that the message
0:18:00 > 0:18:09that this sends, that the UK wits and we do away with rights that we
0:18:09 > 0:18:13campaign for, that gave us the universal declaration, is an
0:18:13 > 0:18:18opponents, and needs the Minister to come to the dispatch box and say
0:18:18 > 0:18:28he's changed his mind? -- is an up up audience.You cannot get rid of
0:18:28 > 0:18:33something that provides legal protections without a statement from
0:18:33 > 0:18:37ministers about the effect this could have a laugh. I'll give way to
0:18:37 > 0:18:43the honourable gentleman. -- that this could have. I'll give way. One
0:18:43 > 0:18:51of the most fundamental questions is about the supremacy of the European
0:18:51 > 0:18:55Court has overall parliamentary act and which will be transferred,
0:18:55 > 0:19:00effectively, with the amendments proposed to the Supreme Court.Would
0:19:00 > 0:19:04he accept that with regard to the protection of children, for
0:19:04 > 0:19:09evidence, I was responsible for the protection of children Bill back
0:19:09 > 0:19:14minuted 70s and my gender equality bill for international developing,
0:19:14 > 0:19:19these are intrinsic Westminster acts, we don't need the Georgia can
0:19:19 > 0:19:28grow that, we do this ourselves. -- the charter to do that.We want
0:19:28 > 0:19:33legislation to be as good as it can be. We currently have that extra
0:19:33 > 0:19:38level of protection that the Charter of fundamental rights provides. I'm
0:19:38 > 0:19:42simply asking for, in this new clause, and analysis from ministers
0:19:42 > 0:19:45about what would happen to child protection and many other flights if
0:19:45 > 0:19:52we delete that from our current set of legal protections. -- and many
0:19:52 > 0:19:57other rights.And grateful to my honourable friend Rick giving way.
0:19:57 > 0:20:01Does he agree with me that this is not just about the application of
0:20:01 > 0:20:06the Rabin Charter in British law, it is a matter of the message we send
0:20:06 > 0:20:12to the rest of the world? -- the European Charter in British law.
0:20:12 > 0:20:16There are not British rights, there are universal human rights. That is
0:20:16 > 0:20:20the message that this Government and our continent should centre the rest
0:20:20 > 0:20:24of the world, where people do not enjoy these rights.My honourable
0:20:24 > 0:20:29friend makes a good point. If there was a provision here to copy and
0:20:29 > 0:20:33paste many of these general right into the UK law, to preserve these
0:20:33 > 0:20:37arrangements as they stand, the Government would have a reasonable
0:20:37 > 0:20:41case to make. There isn't that alternative provision. It is simply
0:20:41 > 0:20:46to delete the Charter of fundamental rights. I did promise I would give
0:20:46 > 0:20:51way.First of all, when the Charter of fundamental rights was
0:20:51 > 0:20:55introduced, it was said that it was simply restating existing rights
0:20:55 > 0:21:01that were elsewhere in EU law. Secondly, this argument that somehow
0:21:01 > 0:21:06if we don't have rights given to us by the EU, somehow we in Britain
0:21:06 > 0:21:11cannot manage this ourselves, is utter nonsense. We are signed up to
0:21:11 > 0:21:16the EU Convention and have an equality act of God. We are
0:21:16 > 0:21:26signatory to a lot of UN treaties. The -- have an equality act of our
0:21:26 > 0:21:30own.The difficulty is. It might well be the case that over the
0:21:30 > 0:21:36course of time the UK Parliament and a statute could salvage many of the
0:21:36 > 0:21:40protections. As we see in the bill, at this point in time it is seeking
0:21:40 > 0:21:45to delete the Charter of fundamental rights from the point of that this
0:21:45 > 0:21:48legislation. In other words, to delete the Charter of fundamental
0:21:48 > 0:21:50rights from the point of that when of this legislation. In other words,
0:21:50 > 0:21:53today, writes which we hope may eventually -- to take away rights
0:21:53 > 0:21:59which we hope. There is no guarantee that we will get these again. I give
0:21:59 > 0:22:08way.As an old lawyer and somebody that enjoyed jurisprudence, I wasn't
0:22:08 > 0:22:15rights, from many different sources. I'm an old common life I don't like
0:22:15 > 0:22:19stuff -- common lawyer, so I don't like stuff being written down too
0:22:19 > 0:22:23much. I would need persuading about this amendment because it's just
0:22:23 > 0:22:29sort of have a report and it seems awfully wet, if I may say so.
0:22:29 > 0:22:35LAUGHTER .I was trying my best to say, let's
0:22:35 > 0:22:44meet halfway, let's find a way of forging a consensus. If she wishes,
0:22:44 > 0:22:48there are other amendments on the order paper today that say, let's
0:22:48 > 0:22:52keep the Charter of fundamental rights, I'll certainly be voting for
0:22:52 > 0:22:57those. Obviously, she knows that I'm in a spirit of God was. I would like
0:22:57 > 0:23:04to find a way of reaching consensus. -- in the spirit of consensus. I
0:23:04 > 0:23:08massively impressed by her strength and commitment to the protection of
0:23:08 > 0:23:14rights in our country. I give way. One is the differences between the
0:23:14 > 0:23:18Charter for fundamental rights and the European Convention of human
0:23:18 > 0:23:22rights is article eight in the Charter on the protection of
0:23:22 > 0:23:27personal data. Is it not a particular irony that the Secretary
0:23:27 > 0:23:34of State for Brexit relies on precisely this provision to sue the
0:23:34 > 0:23:38British Government.I think it's probably time to elaborate on this.
0:23:38 > 0:23:44The secretary of state sued the then Home Secretary, with the older
0:23:44 > 0:23:52members will know is now the Prime Minister, to challenge the data
0:23:52 > 0:23:56retention and investigatory Powers act 2014 as inconsistent with EU
0:23:56 > 0:24:02law. The Secretary of State himself, right honourable member, use the
0:24:02 > 0:24:09argument in court that the Charter of fundamental rights needed to be
0:24:09 > 0:24:13looked at. He was successful at that point in time in the case, by the
0:24:13 > 0:24:19way.I think the honourable gentleman forgiving way. I was on to
0:24:19 > 0:24:21preserve a case of behalf of the Government at the time, as a
0:24:21 > 0:24:29Government lawyer. That brings me to my blue worries about the Charter --
0:24:29 > 0:24:35my real worries about the Charter is that it's simply too complicated. It
0:24:35 > 0:24:37doesn't add sufficient rights. Everybody in this House is in favour
0:24:37 > 0:24:43of the rights we have in the convention, incorporated in English
0:24:43 > 0:24:48law, we are keen on these. We don't feel that the Charter as
0:24:48 > 0:24:52sufficiently, as we found in enormous amount of argument in that
0:24:52 > 0:24:59very case, to take us much further. I have no reason to in any way
0:24:59 > 0:25:02question the honourable lady's capabilities in court. In no way I'm
0:25:02 > 0:25:08I think she was a loser at all in this particular case. -- am I saying
0:25:08 > 0:25:10that she was a loser. LAUGHTER
0:25:10 > 0:25:18. These are rights that are very clear. Simple. Dignity, the vital
0:25:18 > 0:25:24life, freedom from slavery, Parker, the price of liberty, personal
0:25:24 > 0:25:30integrity, privacy, protection of personal data, freedom of marriage,
0:25:30 > 0:25:38but, assembly, education, work, property, asylum. The right to
0:25:38 > 0:25:44freedom from discrimination in terms of age, sexuality, solidarity and
0:25:44 > 0:25:50the rights to fair working conditions. Protections against
0:25:50 > 0:25:54unjustified dismissal. These are really simple and important rights.
0:25:54 > 0:26:00And grateful for the honourable friend giving way. I agree that we
0:26:00 > 0:26:08need a -- we need more than a report and these rights enshrined. Will you
0:26:08 > 0:26:11agree with me around the rights of older people that the limited
0:26:11 > 0:26:14protections around older people, particularly when we see so many
0:26:14 > 0:26:18older people eating things like social care, which they cannot get,
0:26:18 > 0:26:24and it's so important that we get these rights. -- so many older
0:26:24 > 0:26:33people needing things like social care.The cruel sites that come from
0:26:33 > 0:26:37the general case law that courts will make conclusions about. The
0:26:37 > 0:26:42Charter fills many of these gaps. Regularly in some circumstances. I
0:26:42 > 0:26:48will give way to my honourable friend in a moment. Can I make the
0:26:48 > 0:26:57case of protection of public health. When the Tobacco Manufacturers
0:26:57 > 0:27:01sought to challenge the Government's introduction of plain packaging of
0:27:01 > 0:27:08cigarettes, of course they hated that idea, they wanted to stop it.
0:27:08 > 0:27:13The Government, in defence of that legislation, said, the Charter of
0:27:13 > 0:27:15fundamental rights and its protections for public health need
0:27:15 > 0:27:23to be used in that case. The court upheld the plain packaging
0:27:23 > 0:27:28arrangements at the legislation in the UK based very much on the
0:27:28 > 0:27:33protections of public of rights that were laid out in the Charter. A very
0:27:33 > 0:27:37specific example of how this Charter has benefited the rights and
0:27:37 > 0:27:42protections of our citizens in this country. I give way.Thank you for
0:27:42 > 0:27:47your kind reference to my amendment 151 on the order paper. Going back
0:27:47 > 0:27:51to article eight and a case brought by the narrow Secretary of State for
0:27:51 > 0:27:56Exiting the EU, I wonder if he agrees with me that if the Secretary
0:27:56 > 0:27:59of State had not been able to rely on Article eight, the likelihood is
0:27:59 > 0:28:03that he would not have won at and the honourable member that
0:28:03 > 0:28:09intervened on him a moment ago would have gone for the Government. It
0:28:09 > 0:28:14shows that the Charter has impact. If the honourable letter had won her
0:28:14 > 0:28:19case, would she be here at all? -- honourable lady had won her case.
0:28:19 > 0:28:23Maybe she would have got higher on the judicial ladder.
0:28:23 > 0:28:26LAUGHTER . And grateful for you forgiving
0:28:26 > 0:28:34way. The member from Banbury has suggested that the right to
0:28:34 > 0:28:37complicated for English law.Will the honourable member be sure that
0:28:37 > 0:28:42these rights have been incorporated into Scots law, with a separate
0:28:42 > 0:28:46legal system is, and the super legal systems of other member states, so
0:28:46 > 0:28:52it is not to complicated in English law?The honourable lady makes a
0:28:52 > 0:28:56point very well herself. Perhaps the honourable lady would like a
0:28:56 > 0:29:01response to that?My point is not that we do not approve of the
0:29:01 > 0:29:07rights, nor that we think it was not possible to make the case without
0:29:07 > 0:29:14the Charter, but one of the Charter was part of English law, since the
0:29:14 > 0:29:18Lisbon Treaty, as good as possible lawyers, whether acting for the
0:29:18 > 0:29:23Government or anybody else, of course we use whatever tools are
0:29:23 > 0:29:28available, which in recent times have included the Charter. My point
0:29:28 > 0:29:37out, very clearly, is that we do not the provisions in the Charter. It
0:29:37 > 0:29:43can do one or two tiny things. Class for example. Making it what you can
0:29:43 > 0:29:50get back greater. -- making what you can get back greater. But we were
0:29:50 > 0:29:55riding possibilities the claimants possibly. My case would be that it
0:29:55 > 0:30:00is possible that we can do what we need YouTube to protect human rights
0:30:00 > 0:30:04-- what we need to do to protect human rights within the law as we
0:30:04 > 0:30:07have it in this country.I hear the honourable lady's case and it's the
0:30:07 > 0:30:18same case as has been made previously. She characterises these
0:30:18 > 0:30:23things that the Charter can do as small and minister. But they are not
0:30:23 > 0:30:27necessarily small and minuscule to our constituents, two members of the
0:30:27 > 0:30:31public, the most honourable and society that may depend on those
0:30:31 > 0:30:39very rights provided by the Charter in crucial circumstances. I should
0:30:39 > 0:30:43make some progress but will give way.Thank you. Does he not find it
0:30:43 > 0:30:51odd that we are transposing all of EU law into our own lost but the
0:30:51 > 0:30:56thing that underpins all of the year was we are taking away? Taking away
0:30:56 > 0:31:00the fundamentals, the foundations of what is the body of the EU will. Is
0:31:00 > 0:31:06this not a odd way of going about things?I do find it odd that
0:31:06 > 0:31:11ministers say that somehow it doesn't matter but then say that, we
0:31:11 > 0:31:15must visit from the legislation. They would almost in a ditch to
0:31:15 > 0:31:23defend clause five, subclass of four of the bill, which says that the
0:31:23 > 0:31:28Charter of fundamental rights is not part of English law on or after the
0:31:28 > 0:31:35eggs a day. If it is still not relevant, then why not have this
0:31:35 > 0:31:38report, I know it's tedious to some, but it is necessary to extend
0:31:38 > 0:31:44whether these rights do or do not offer protections and if it's so
0:31:44 > 0:31:49ineffectual, then I don't understand why we should delete it, if this is
0:31:49 > 0:31:54supposed to be a copy and paste exercise, as it transposes across. I
0:31:54 > 0:32:01give way.
0:32:01 > 0:32:11Article one two. Nothing in total four of the charter... In excepting
0:32:11 > 0:32:15that the United Kingdom has provided first such rights in the national
0:32:15 > 0:32:21law. The whole point, subject to the protocol, is that it does not apply
0:32:21 > 0:32:25in our national law.I am not sure that is the interpretation of the
0:32:25 > 0:32:33courts and it was the reference to the charter in a number of cases. In
0:32:33 > 0:32:39fact, if the honourable gentleman looks and listens later on to the
0:32:39 > 0:32:45case that my honourable friend will make in respect to amendments one
0:32:45 > 0:32:4951, the free flow of data across borders and the protections that we
0:32:49 > 0:32:55have, the very backbone of our data protection laws that those alongside
0:32:55 > 0:33:00the general data protection regulations are represented in this
0:33:00 > 0:33:06charter of fundamental rights. That is not me making that case, it is
0:33:06 > 0:33:13the trade bodies and organisations that fight for privacy rights. These
0:33:13 > 0:33:17are many organisations and NGOs that will be bombarded in members
0:33:17 > 0:33:23opposite in their inboxes of the protections these have. I want to
0:33:23 > 0:33:27make more progress as there are a number of amendments and need to
0:33:27 > 0:33:33reference. It does seem to me, and I hope this is not the case, that the
0:33:33 > 0:33:41Prime Minister worried that the hard line Eurosceptics, the hard line
0:33:41 > 0:33:47Eurosceptics on her benches are nipping at her heels, that she had
0:33:47 > 0:33:51to throw them the bone. There was a need to give them something and
0:33:51 > 0:33:56therefore the charter of fundamental rights was the scalpel that she felt
0:33:56 > 0:34:01she had to throw in the direction of some members opposite, not all
0:34:01 > 0:34:08members opposite. I hope that is not the case because in doing so a
0:34:08 > 0:34:14number of significant protections, data, children's rights, public
0:34:14 > 0:34:18health or even the protections that the Secretary of State himself has
0:34:18 > 0:34:22used, these are rights and privileges that we should guard. It
0:34:22 > 0:34:29is our job to stand up and point out when the Executive are trying to
0:34:29 > 0:34:33potentially erode those rights. I hope we can keep the charter but at
0:34:33 > 0:34:43very least have a report. If I may, I want to talk about and 62 which is
0:34:43 > 0:34:49also relating to changes in rights it is not pure copy and paste
0:34:49 > 0:34:56legislation. It seeks to preserve something known as the rule in our
0:34:56 > 0:35:01legal system and it is a fundamental principle of any democracy that
0:35:01 > 0:35:09Government should not be above the law, in European Union law this
0:35:09 > 0:35:14principle is made known. It is a piece of case law established which
0:35:14 > 0:35:18has provided citizens with tools to recover damages when their
0:35:18 > 0:35:24Government falls short of legal obligations. Now, in this case again
0:35:24 > 0:35:28the Government are trying to do away with those projections and I have
0:35:28 > 0:35:35tabled the amendment and I note other members have done so to ask
0:35:35 > 0:35:39the Government what the effect of removing this protection would be. I
0:35:39 > 0:35:48will give way.Isn't it right if you look for example at the recent
0:35:48 > 0:35:52prosecutions of the Government under the clean air laws, this may not
0:35:52 > 0:35:55have been possible if we did not have this enshrined in the act and
0:35:55 > 0:36:00the result of the bill as drafted is the day before Brexit people have
0:36:00 > 0:36:03the right to claim damages from the Government but there is a danger
0:36:03 > 0:36:08that the day after Brexit, they will not have that right?Yes, I think my
0:36:08 > 0:36:12honourable friend makes the point very well and we could all imagine
0:36:12 > 0:36:16circumstances where Government could be hard responsible for failure to
0:36:16 > 0:36:23comply with the legal obligations. It might well include failure to
0:36:23 > 0:36:31comply with a quality directives and those who suffer harm may not longer
0:36:31 > 0:36:37have rights of redress and these are rights that could exist not just in
0:36:37 > 0:36:44the environmental field but also in equal opportunities legislation. I
0:36:44 > 0:36:47can see circumstances where, for instance, if there were pensions
0:36:47 > 0:36:55arrangements that same-sex couples had rights to but sought to reclaim
0:36:55 > 0:37:02their rights from arrangements that might not have existed in the past
0:37:02 > 0:37:06but want to recruit those rights to those pensions, they would not have
0:37:06 > 0:37:12the right to do so under the arrangements. The other big one is
0:37:12 > 0:37:16competition law. It relies on the right to challenge the Government,
0:37:16 > 0:37:20particularly when it comes to procurement arrangement. Companies
0:37:20 > 0:37:23that say we did not get the contract for this or that reason, they may
0:37:23 > 0:37:29well feel it was partly because they were unfairly treated by Government
0:37:29 > 0:37:36and under the arrangements we do have projections so that contracts
0:37:36 > 0:37:40can be led fairly, house-building, transport, infrastructure, you name
0:37:40 > 0:37:45it. There are a number of protections and is safeguarding
0:37:45 > 0:37:48there. Perhaps the biggest one that has not been addressed by Ministers
0:37:48 > 0:37:56where this lot may still be required is to protect the rights of European
0:37:56 > 0:38:01Union nationals after Brexit. We will continue to have a number of EU
0:38:01 > 0:38:08nationals who reside within the UK after Brexit. What will happen if
0:38:08 > 0:38:13their residency rights or definitions change, if their
0:38:13 > 0:38:17children are affected by changes of arrangements with the Government, if
0:38:17 > 0:38:22rights to claim those tax reliefs are other things change in an unfair
0:38:22 > 0:38:28way for them, as EU nationals? I think they should be some level of
0:38:28 > 0:38:36free dress against that. At the very least, we need to hear from
0:38:36 > 0:38:41Ministers a better justification for the deletion of this protection.I
0:38:41 > 0:38:46thank my honourable friend forgiving way at making some excellent points.
0:38:46 > 0:38:51His amendment on this echoes my own, however mine is different in terms
0:38:51 > 0:38:56of time limitations. Would you not agree with me that it is unthinkable
0:38:56 > 0:39:00that the Government who threw this bill said all rights and protections
0:39:00 > 0:39:07would be guaranteed, is now seeking to remove the ability to sue the
0:39:07 > 0:39:13state at a time when it, as the Government, is about to incorporate
0:39:13 > 0:39:20hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of European Union law into
0:39:20 > 0:39:24our UK law and it is basically saying, if anything goes wrong with
0:39:24 > 0:39:31any of that, you have no right to sue us in the future.Indeed, my
0:39:31 > 0:39:34honourable friend is correct and she has tabled a good amendment on this
0:39:34 > 0:39:40issue. I think Ministers need to do better and explain why they would
0:39:40 > 0:39:44seek to wrench out of the protections for our citizens this
0:39:44 > 0:39:50potential right to redress arrangement, particularly when this
0:39:50 > 0:39:59may well affect the need for redress that takes place before Brexit date.
0:39:59 > 0:40:03This is not saying, this rule will not apply to situations that take
0:40:03 > 0:40:08place or a car after exit day. It is actually commit the way the bill has
0:40:08 > 0:40:13been drafted, which prevent that right and redress even if the claim
0:40:13 > 0:40:19itself relates to an occasion prior to the exit day. Honourable members,
0:40:19 > 0:40:22regardless of political parties, should think about the constituents
0:40:22 > 0:40:27and the cases we pick up, the surgery discussions we have with
0:40:27 > 0:40:31people who say, what can I do? The Government is the large and powerful
0:40:31 > 0:40:36organisation. This is a point the organisation the members opposite
0:40:36 > 0:40:41me, the size of the state. The individual needs rights to protect
0:40:41 > 0:40:47themselves and some of those circumstances. This is something
0:40:47 > 0:40:51that should transcend normal political party issues.As he will
0:40:51 > 0:40:57know, the threshold for claiming damages, the breach is to be
0:40:57 > 0:41:02serious. It is a principle stemming from EU jurisprudence. Is his
0:41:02 > 0:41:09position that claims will be interpreted under UK law, even in
0:41:09 > 0:41:16the event of a lack of provision for sufficiently serious on the UK
0:41:16 > 0:41:21clock, or will it be UK courts will be applying jurisprudence on this
0:41:21 > 0:41:24event?Would not be great if we were having a proper debate about
0:41:24 > 0:41:31retaining the protections, then she may well have a case of increasing
0:41:31 > 0:41:35or decreasing the level of damage thresholds. That is not what we are
0:41:35 > 0:41:40debating. We are debating the deletion of this protection, that
0:41:40 > 0:41:44right to redress, from our laws and protections. I would happily discuss
0:41:44 > 0:41:48with higher will it should be set. I think there is a perfect debate that
0:41:48 > 0:41:52needs to be had about that. We're talking about the principle yes or
0:41:52 > 0:41:57no whether it should be retained within the legislation.I am
0:41:57 > 0:42:02grateful to my honourable friend forgiving way. He suspects rightly
0:42:02 > 0:42:09that the Government will say that the charter from the UK will not
0:42:09 > 0:42:13affect the substantive rights of individuals already that they would
0:42:13 > 0:42:17benefit from in this country. Does he agree with me the problem is the
0:42:17 > 0:42:22Government does not go on to say what those substantive rights are?
0:42:22 > 0:42:28And if we simply leave it to the common law, it may not be this
0:42:28 > 0:42:32parliament but future parliaments could determine it is right to erode
0:42:32 > 0:42:36those rights. That is why it is important we stick with the charter.
0:42:36 > 0:42:43I think we need to make sure that if we are transposing legislation, it
0:42:43 > 0:42:48is a true copy and paste and that is not what we have got proposed. I am
0:42:48 > 0:42:54not in favour necessarily of cutting off our relations to the single
0:42:54 > 0:42:59market, the custom unions, there is lots of debates around the Brexit
0:42:59 > 0:43:03choices we have before us. This is a set of separate discussions about
0:43:03 > 0:43:07the rights that our citizens and constituents could have any post
0:43:07 > 0:43:11Brexit scenario and we need to have better justification to be convinced
0:43:11 > 0:43:17that throwing these overboard at this stage...I think the honourable
0:43:17 > 0:43:22member is making a very good point. The point about this is, if you have
0:43:22 > 0:43:27a directive, which we have accepted into British law, we cannot have a
0:43:27 > 0:43:31claim arising from that director because he will have left the
0:43:31 > 0:43:34European Union. That is simply not fear. You would have had a claim but
0:43:34 > 0:43:39because we have left and you seek to make that claim after we have left,
0:43:39 > 0:43:44you will not be able to do so. It is right any new directive,... It is
0:43:44 > 0:43:52this effectively is bad when you have a right to take it away and we
0:43:52 > 0:43:55have accepted the directive into substantive law. I think that is the
0:43:55 > 0:44:01point.The very good argument that the honourable lady makes that we
0:44:01 > 0:44:05are transposing certain bits of legislation into UK law but not
0:44:05 > 0:44:09necessarily the protections to go alongside that. That is essentially
0:44:09 > 0:44:13the point that I think we need an explanation for. Why not bring those
0:44:13 > 0:44:24with us? I will give way.Listening carefully to his argument on
0:44:24 > 0:44:29transposing it into British law, is his case we should transpose the cut
0:44:29 > 0:44:35and pastes or it should be adapted? Article 39 talks about the right to
0:44:35 > 0:44:41stand in the European Parliament. Petition to the European Parliament
0:44:41 > 0:44:45and article 45, freedom of movement, all of which after we leave will no
0:44:45 > 0:44:52longer be relevant.I have been in Parliament since 1997 on and off and
0:44:52 > 0:44:58I find that sometimes when amendments are proposed, they can
0:44:58 > 0:45:03often be rebuffed for a number of reasons. I often feel that there is
0:45:03 > 0:45:08a technical deficiency, it tends to be the last refuge of the Minister.
0:45:08 > 0:45:13They wait now be of course arguments that say, well, you need to cut and
0:45:13 > 0:45:17paste the charter of fundamental rights or the provisions but taking
0:45:17 > 0:45:22in regard changes of the language for new circumstances. Everybody can
0:45:22 > 0:45:26recognise the need for consequential subtle amendments to the
0:45:26 > 0:45:30legislation. Let's not kid ourselves, we are talking about far
0:45:30 > 0:45:35bigger principles here. The honourable gentleman I hope will not
0:45:35 > 0:45:39diminish the importance of the charter of fundamental rights and
0:45:39 > 0:45:42those myriad of legal rights and protections that we had and are so
0:45:42 > 0:45:48very essential for the specific and general reasons I have given. I will
0:45:48 > 0:45:53give way one more time but I want to make sure the members have a right
0:45:53 > 0:45:59to speak today.I find myself in violent agreement with the
0:45:59 > 0:46:06honourable lady on the issue and I will be speaking to those points on
0:46:06 > 0:46:11more detail later. I wondered if my honourable friend shared my
0:46:11 > 0:46:16concerns, going back to the charter, that certain rights such as
0:46:16 > 0:46:19environmental rights, consumer rights and the rights of the elderly
0:46:19 > 0:46:25in particular, which are not highly developed in UK case law or any
0:46:25 > 0:46:30other legislation, are gently being thrown out with the backwater in
0:46:30 > 0:46:35this removal of fundamental rights? It is an important point. Our legal
0:46:35 > 0:46:40system is one of the finest in the world and it is a dynamic legal
0:46:40 > 0:46:46system. It is not reliant on statute. It can relate to cases as
0:46:46 > 0:46:52it revolves and the charter, which could be a charter within UK law,
0:46:52 > 0:46:58according to this bill, if it were transposed, could help to maintain
0:46:58 > 0:47:02that protection of rights to fill the gaps for those unforeseen
0:47:02 > 0:47:07circumstances. We do not know what our constituents will bring to us
0:47:07 > 0:47:11from one week to the next. We may find a constituent who has found
0:47:11 > 0:47:17their rights have been deprived and fairly. The need to have redress to
0:47:17 > 0:47:25protect them potentially from Government or from others and what
0:47:25 > 0:47:30will we say to those constituents in those circumstances in future in our
0:47:30 > 0:47:35surgeries and discussions when they say, you had the opportunity to
0:47:35 > 0:47:39transpose and retain that charter of fundamental rights and protections
0:47:39 > 0:47:44and we said, well, it was a busy day, did not notice what was going
0:47:44 > 0:47:47on in the Chamber are lots of complex things going on about
0:47:47 > 0:47:51Brexit. This really matters and I am delighted and proud that many
0:47:51 > 0:47:56members on all sides of this house are voicing those concerns and are
0:47:56 > 0:48:00not prepared to just see these rights swept away on a ministerial
0:48:00 > 0:48:06say-so.
0:48:06 > 0:48:11Charter of fundamental rights, government report. The question is
0:48:11 > 0:48:17that new clause 16 be read a second time. Mr Dominic Grieve.Thank you.
0:48:17 > 0:48:23It is a great pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman and if I may
0:48:23 > 0:48:32say so, I don't take the view of the member for Brock still in her
0:48:32 > 0:48:36description of his new clause 16. It seems to me that in bringing it
0:48:36 > 0:48:42forward for consideration he has accurately sought to stimulate
0:48:42 > 0:48:47debate which is extremely important on the consequences of getting rid
0:48:47 > 0:48:55of the charter. I feel sometimes there is a failure with some members
0:48:55 > 0:49:01of this house to actually look at what has been happening in our
0:49:01 > 0:49:07society and country over a 40 year period. Western democracies on the
0:49:07 > 0:49:14whole have tended, in that time, to develop the idea of rights. For some
0:49:14 > 0:49:19honourable member this appears to be anathema and make them choke over
0:49:19 > 0:49:23their cornflakes. The simple fact is it is a development I have always
0:49:23 > 0:49:29welcomed and it seems to me it has delivered substantial benefits for
0:49:29 > 0:49:38all members of society and particularly the most vulnerable. It
0:49:38 > 0:49:44is also right that we have had a long debate about how we reconcile
0:49:44 > 0:49:52rights with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. It was a
0:49:52 > 0:49:59Labour government which sought to craft and reconcile the Human Rights
0:49:59 > 0:50:05Act in trying to do that reconciliation. Most people would
0:50:05 > 0:50:13argue it has worked very well by preserving parliamentary
0:50:13 > 0:50:16sovereignty, enabling secondary legislation to be struck down if
0:50:16 > 0:50:20incompatible and with a measurement of incompatibility were required.
0:50:20 > 0:50:28But the truth is also that because of membership of the EU, there are
0:50:28 > 0:50:34some areas many would regard as rates but which fall outside the
0:50:34 > 0:50:44scope of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention, which have
0:50:44 > 0:50:50developed as a result of European union membership. I appreciate that
0:50:50 > 0:50:54leads to a double talking over the cornflakes because not only has it
0:50:54 > 0:51:00come from what some might regard as a tainted source, I don't know why.
0:51:00 > 0:51:09On top of that, it does have the issue around it that it does not
0:51:09 > 0:51:13have any regard for Parliamentary sovereignty once in place. It has
0:51:13 > 0:51:19the capacity to trump domestic laws where there is an incompatibility
0:51:19 > 0:51:25with domestically enacted laws and the principles that have come from
0:51:25 > 0:51:29the charter. It is part of the supremacy of EU law to which we've
0:51:29 > 0:51:36all been subject. It should not make us ignore the benefits it has
0:51:36 > 0:51:44conferred. Whatever we may think as we talk about Parliamentary
0:51:44 > 0:51:46sovereignty, I ventured the suggestion that if you go out into
0:51:46 > 0:51:52the street and ask people whether they think equality law, largely EU
0:51:52 > 0:51:56derived, has been a value to this country, most people would give a
0:51:56 > 0:52:03resounding note of approval. I'm sure they would do the same in the
0:52:03 > 0:52:08case recently in relation to the ability of the sovereignty immunity
0:52:08 > 0:52:14act to be this applied for the purposes of enabling unemployment
0:52:14 > 0:52:19case to be brought against an embassy that had ill treated one of
0:52:19 > 0:52:24its employees. And of course as has been stated, my right honourable
0:52:24 > 0:52:31friend has availed himself of the provisions of the charter and the
0:52:31 > 0:52:36rates that the EU has conferred in relation to questions of data
0:52:36 > 0:52:46privacy and the way in which data is handled.Is he aware of simple
0:52:46 > 0:52:53rights that many of us will have used on behalf of a parent like
0:52:53 > 0:52:57wheelchair accessibility at airports? Write that came up in the
0:52:57 > 0:53:03review that I did for the government in terms of youth justice, making
0:53:03 > 0:53:10courts child friendly so you are not intimidating, for example a young
0:53:10 > 0:53:15woman relating a terrible case of sexual assault. These rights exist
0:53:15 > 0:53:21as a result of the charter and we should pay some respect to our
0:53:21 > 0:53:35European friends for giving it to us.I plays great respect for the
0:53:35 > 0:53:38European Union, the founding fathers wished it to be based on principles
0:53:38 > 0:53:43not just of the rule of law but of a vision of human society that is one
0:53:43 > 0:53:50I have no difficulty approving of. I don't have any problem with that at
0:53:50 > 0:53:59all. It worries me in the course of this debate on Brexit and on our
0:53:59 > 0:54:03departure from the EU that we seem to be at risk of losing sight in
0:54:03 > 0:54:10this massive up evil of venom I've experienced. Especially in the last
0:54:10 > 0:54:17week. It seems to me to have no relation to reality at all and it
0:54:17 > 0:54:22troubles me that in this up evil of venom, these real aspects of
0:54:22 > 0:54:34progress within our society are overlooked.I am most grateful to my
0:54:34 > 0:54:37honourable friend who I listened to with great care and interests. Could
0:54:37 > 0:54:43he explain why the matters to which he has just referred could not in
0:54:43 > 0:54:49fact and are not in fact enacted in UK law of the kind that they
0:54:49 > 0:54:54describe, protecting the children, gender equality, does he not also
0:54:54 > 0:54:59understand that it is really terribly important to remember that
0:54:59 > 0:55:06what is implicit in this charter, and he knows this is that it carries
0:55:06 > 0:55:12the power to do supply enactments in the case of the supreme court as is
0:55:12 > 0:55:16already present in relation to the European Court itself. He gives a
0:55:16 > 0:55:22very good example in the merchant shipping act of 1988.I thought it
0:55:22 > 0:55:27would come along at some point in the debate. Of course my honourable
0:55:27 > 0:55:31friend is right about that and I know that he has spent most of his
0:55:31 > 0:55:39career in this house agonising over the issue of loss or diminution of
0:55:39 > 0:55:44Parliamentary sovereignty and it is not a matter to be neglected. If he
0:55:44 > 0:55:48waits I will come on to that point. In looking at that point, the
0:55:48 > 0:55:58honourable gentleman has done the right thing. We need to focus on
0:55:58 > 0:56:02what is going to happen after we left. My honourable friend is
0:56:02 > 0:56:13correct. The laws but we have enacted at the date of exit, as a
0:56:13 > 0:56:16consequence of our EU membership and requirements to a deer with the
0:56:16 > 0:56:21charter, will remain in place. But it is an interesting feature that
0:56:21 > 0:56:27they will there after the unprotected. They will not even, for
0:56:27 > 0:56:32example, enjoy the special protection which we crafted in the
0:56:32 > 0:56:39Human Rights Act for other areas which are of importance. One
0:56:39 > 0:56:45solution might be that in due course we think very carefully as to
0:56:45 > 0:56:51whether there are other rights in the European Convention on human
0:56:51 > 0:56:57rights, heaven knows we have been here before, which should enjoy the
0:56:57 > 0:57:03protection the Human Rights Act affords them. Where I do agree with
0:57:03 > 0:57:10my honourable friend is it is a slightly strange situation. We
0:57:10 > 0:57:18should in leaving the EU, being done for national sovereignty reasons, I
0:57:18 > 0:57:23need to accept that to then say that we are going to maintain
0:57:23 > 0:57:28entrenchment of certain categories of rates, protected in the charter
0:57:28 > 0:57:39and give them a status even higher than prohibiting torture under the
0:57:39 > 0:57:45EC HR, might strike people as rather odd. On that basis I am forced to
0:57:45 > 0:57:51the conclusion that if we are leaving the EU, as we intend to do,
0:57:51 > 0:57:53the sort of entrenchment which has previously existed is not
0:57:53 > 0:57:59sustainable. It's an issue we will need where to come back to this
0:57:59 > 0:58:04house and consider how we move forward. But in saying that, I think
0:58:04 > 0:58:10this is a very big issue indeed. It worries me that we are going to come
0:58:10 > 0:58:18into a period when we leave in March 2019 where there will be a gap,
0:58:18 > 0:58:21where areas of law that matter to people are not protected in any way
0:58:21 > 0:58:28whatsoever. It is no surprise that NGOs have been bombarding MPs with
0:58:28 > 0:58:33anxiety, I think it is misplaced, I don't believe any of the members on
0:58:33 > 0:58:37the front intends to diminish existing rights but we are in danger
0:58:37 > 0:58:43of two things. One is sclerosis that the rights development will cease
0:58:43 > 0:58:49and secondary, because they do not enjoy any special status, which they
0:58:49 > 0:58:56should, we will fail and there will be occasions where we nibble away at
0:58:56 > 0:59:03them and we discover they've been lost. It is an urgent issue for
0:59:03 > 0:59:11consideration by this house, very shortly, after we leave. I give way
0:59:11 > 0:59:19to my honourable friend.He is making a speech with his
0:59:19 > 0:59:26characteristic intellectual honesty. Nothing passes him by. But in that
0:59:26 > 0:59:31spirit I wonder if he would agree that the charter is not the solution
0:59:31 > 0:59:40to incorporating the rights that so many of us want to see incorporated.
0:59:40 > 0:59:44Possibly the way forward is not to vote for this amendment but continue
0:59:44 > 0:59:47to put pressure on those on the Treasury bench to ensure these
0:59:47 > 0:59:53rights are protected in a modern and suitable way the current world.My
0:59:53 > 0:59:59honourable friend makes a good point. This amendment just asks for
0:59:59 > 1:00:02a report. It is trying to concentrate minds on an issue. When
1:00:02 > 1:00:12we were debating last week. -- one of the points I made on my clause,
1:00:12 > 1:00:18still hanging, is that there may be some ways in which we can provide,
1:00:18 > 1:00:24even now, some greater reassurance of the protection of rights in the
1:00:24 > 1:00:30field of equality, even now as we agree to leave as temporary measure
1:00:30 > 1:00:35and we come back to this. I strongly commend that they pay attention to
1:00:35 > 1:00:43this. It's an issue that isn't going to go away. If we don't not seem to
1:00:43 > 1:00:52act then this idea starts to free at the edges. It's not a place where I
1:00:52 > 1:00:57would wish my party's reputation would seem to be ignoring these
1:00:57 > 1:01:05issues.Mate I use an example of very cash strapped services which
1:01:05 > 1:01:11would not wish to be extending the rights and the costs of services,
1:01:11 > 1:01:18for example in the HK sector where a couple that was split up because of
1:01:18 > 1:01:25the age of one of the couple can remain as a couple. And we imagine
1:01:25 > 1:01:29in a time of cash-strapped services that this is the sort of right that
1:01:29 > 1:01:34might not necessarily follow on to the lack of service users.That is
1:01:34 > 1:01:38covered by the Human Rights Act so let's not get too worried. We also
1:01:38 > 1:01:45have to face up to the fact that some socioeconomic rights require
1:01:45 > 1:01:51levels of cost and economic policy decisions which are legitimate areas
1:01:51 > 1:01:56for Parliament and government to say that however ideal they might be, a
1:01:56 > 1:02:01balance must be struck. That's why I'm careful about the infinite
1:02:01 > 1:02:07extension of rights because they are by Yu Delu the importance and that
1:02:07 > 1:02:14is a very important matter to keep in mind. I'll give way to the
1:02:14 > 1:02:22honourable gentleman.Isn't one of the problems with the charter and
1:02:22 > 1:02:26its interpretation by the court but because it is a very general set of
1:02:26 > 1:02:35rights it can be extended by courts and because unlike the EC HR it is
1:02:35 > 1:02:38not compatibility, it is about striking down acts of this
1:02:38 > 1:02:43Parliament, it doesn't get that balance right?
1:02:43 > 1:02:50I would say this, this was one of the anxieties when the charter was
1:02:50 > 1:02:56enacted and is the reason for the UK's so-called opt out. The opt out
1:02:56 > 1:03:03is not the opt out because we are bound by it. Just to take one
1:03:03 > 1:03:08example which he will remember and the case that was about prisoner
1:03:08 > 1:03:15voting rights and the attempt to invoke European Union law as a tool
1:03:15 > 1:03:20to force the UK Government to bring in Fort for prisoners, at least in
1:03:20 > 1:03:27European elections. It caused a lot of disquiet in Government as to the
1:03:27 > 1:03:33possibility that this might be the outcome of the court case. Indeed, I
1:03:33 > 1:03:38went to argue on the Government's behalf in the Supreme Court. They
1:03:38 > 1:03:43did not happen. It was used as a tool but it does not lead to that
1:03:43 > 1:03:48outcome. Looking back over the history of the charter, I have to
1:03:48 > 1:03:55say that some of the fears were expressed that it would be used for
1:03:55 > 1:03:58an expansionist purpose by the European Court of human justice in
1:03:58 > 1:04:03Luxembourg. I do not think that proved to be correct but we are
1:04:03 > 1:04:08leaving the jurisdiction, unless we have to stay in it for a
1:04:08 > 1:04:15transitional purposes, and when we are gone and it will be our own
1:04:15 > 1:04:19supreme court in which I have enormous confidence and our own
1:04:19 > 1:04:25national courts would carry out that interpretation. I do not want to
1:04:25 > 1:04:30labour this point much further. I simply want to say there is a really
1:04:30 > 1:04:35important issue here for us to debate about what happens to the
1:04:35 > 1:04:40sort of rights which have come to us through the charter and through the
1:04:40 > 1:04:44European Union and cannot be ignored and in the short term the Government
1:04:44 > 1:04:48has got to think about this before this bill has finished going through
1:04:48 > 1:04:54this house.I give way. I want to make sure I have understood what is
1:04:54 > 1:04:58being suggested. Is he suggesting that there are some items in the
1:04:58 > 1:05:02charter which are not already going to be retained through the retention
1:05:02 > 1:05:09principles of the bill which should be retained and retained in the form
1:05:09 > 1:05:12effectively of becoming amendment to the age are eight, so they are
1:05:12 > 1:05:19subject to them?That could be the solution but even if we do not have
1:05:19 > 1:05:24time to have that debate, as we highlighted in the question about
1:05:24 > 1:05:28the instrument powers the Government is taking to change law, some
1:05:28 > 1:05:33comfort and reassurance might be provided that there are some
1:05:33 > 1:05:37categories of EU derived a lot that could do with at least the assurance
1:05:37 > 1:05:41that they would require primary legislation to change. I think that
1:05:41 > 1:05:46might go some way to providing reassurance to some of the worthy
1:05:46 > 1:05:51organisations who have been writing to us that there is no malevolent
1:05:51 > 1:05:54intent towards this important area in which rights are developed.I
1:05:54 > 1:06:06give way. One of those areas. One of those areas where European general
1:06:06 > 1:06:09law principles do not cover environmental law principles and
1:06:09 > 1:06:15that was made clear to us in terms from that dispatch box last week.
1:06:15 > 1:06:20The charter does guarantee those environmental rights, so does the
1:06:20 > 1:06:22right honourable gentleman agree with me that environmental
1:06:22 > 1:06:28principles are one of the areas in which this bill is deficient and
1:06:28 > 1:06:32which our rights will be lost?I agree that environmental law is an
1:06:32 > 1:06:37area that could do with the scrutiny that I have been describing. I am
1:06:37 > 1:06:40mindful that might right honourable friend wants me to give way.What he
1:06:40 > 1:06:46was saying, he seems to be a very useful suggestion. Is he suggesting
1:06:46 > 1:06:54as what is described as the triage process, certain items that are
1:06:54 > 1:07:02classed as rights, which are others might be subject to further
1:07:02 > 1:07:07resolution and the technical ones left over?Yes, that is what the
1:07:07 > 1:07:14clause 55 sought to achieve although it did provide the option is to
1:07:14 > 1:07:16looking at technical amendments, really technical, so I do not wish
1:07:16 > 1:07:27to bird in the House with trivia. I give way. -- burden the House.He is
1:07:27 > 1:07:34making it typically thoughtful speech on the subject. We do the
1:07:34 > 1:07:37right to see that there are effectively treat categories within
1:07:37 > 1:07:45the charter of fundamental rights. Those rights that do not make sense,
1:07:45 > 1:07:49director petition, those rights that are already covered by the Human
1:07:49 > 1:07:56Rights Act, right to life, property? There is a third category of rights
1:07:56 > 1:08:01within article 41 which are not covered by our own jurisprudence and
1:08:01 > 1:08:11legal system and might be so in due course?He is right about that. Yes,
1:08:11 > 1:08:15he has correctly analysed what the issues are on the swords of category
1:08:15 > 1:08:20of rights on which we should be focusing. I was hoping to make
1:08:20 > 1:08:28progress.I am most grateful to my right honourable friend. Some of
1:08:28 > 1:08:33these rights are going to be inaugurated in different statutes,
1:08:33 > 1:08:37and environment art and new regulator will be created. Isn't
1:08:37 > 1:08:46this a very, very broad brush designed to deal with these detailed
1:08:46 > 1:08:49issues. Would you give some reassurance that the Supreme Court
1:08:49 > 1:08:54isn't going to be left dealing with more legal uncertainty rather than
1:08:54 > 1:09:00less, because they are going to have to adjudicate between two regimes.
1:09:00 > 1:09:05One which is applicable from our own statute and one where they might
1:09:05 > 1:09:10have to declare an incompatibility with the Convention rights, how is
1:09:10 > 1:09:13this going to diminish legal uncertainty which we know the
1:09:13 > 1:09:17Supreme Court judges are looking for?If I understand the question,
1:09:17 > 1:09:24it goes to the point I made a moment ago which was that it ought to be
1:09:24 > 1:09:29possible for some of these rights to consider whether they should be
1:09:29 > 1:09:32incorporated which provides protection to those currently
1:09:32 > 1:09:36provided in the Human Rights Act. I think it is possible to distinguish
1:09:36 > 1:09:43between what matters and what does not. I think it is possible and an
1:09:43 > 1:09:47exercise which this house and Government will have to carry out.
1:09:47 > 1:09:53It will give this some consideration. Some categories the
1:09:53 > 1:09:56House may think they are not concerned about and they may want to
1:09:56 > 1:10:03stick to children's rights, data privacy, we will need to debate it.
1:10:03 > 1:10:08No, I do not think it will create uncertainty, any more than the Human
1:10:08 > 1:10:12Rights Act will create uncertainty. That is not an issue. I do accept
1:10:12 > 1:10:17that this will take time to draft and time to debate. It is not in
1:10:17 > 1:10:22this current forum where we will be able to achieve that. Can I now
1:10:22 > 1:10:27turn...I give way. I am very grateful because on the point he is
1:10:27 > 1:10:32making, I am in agreement with him. It is right for this place to
1:10:32 > 1:10:40consider and debate the issues the right forum for doing it rather than
1:10:40 > 1:10:44implementing a slew of rights in the hands of the courts. Yes, there we
1:10:44 > 1:10:50are in agreement that it is inevitable and regrettable we face
1:10:50 > 1:10:55the situation but that is why I have to say that speaking personally
1:10:55 > 1:10:59simply to convert the charter, which has lots in it which is an
1:10:59 > 1:11:05convertible and saying that it should maintain entrenched rights
1:11:05 > 1:11:09seems to me that in the light of what we are debating to be an
1:11:09 > 1:11:14impossibility and it is not something that commend itself to me.
1:11:14 > 1:11:18However, can I then moved to slightly narrower issue? We have to
1:11:18 > 1:11:26accept that in what we are doing, we are going through a complex period
1:11:26 > 1:11:30of transition. Forget about the transitional arrangements we may be
1:11:30 > 1:11:36negotiating with our European Union partners, the truth is we are
1:11:36 > 1:11:40creating a whole category of transitional lot because by the
1:11:40 > 1:11:47concept of retained European Union law, we are doing some very strange
1:11:47 > 1:11:55thing is indeed with our ordinary legal principles. Clause 52 allows
1:11:55 > 1:11:57European Union law to have priority over domestic law and certain
1:11:57 > 1:12:04circumstances. In fact, it allows for the possibility of European
1:12:04 > 1:12:10Union lot in active prior to Brexit date being quashed for
1:12:10 > 1:12:15incompatibility with retained EU law that is being retained an exit day.
1:12:15 > 1:12:21I simply make the point that, leaving aside our membership which
1:12:21 > 1:12:26we have ceased, this is an utterly unique development in our legal
1:12:26 > 1:12:32system. It has never happened before and we are about to create a species
1:12:32 > 1:12:38of domestic or semi-domestic law, feral law I would not quite describe
1:12:38 > 1:12:44it, which is going to have this unique quality of being able to
1:12:44 > 1:12:50override our own laws. Clause 63 is going to allow judgments given
1:12:50 > 1:12:55before exit date to be binding but not in our Supreme Court, a matter
1:12:55 > 1:13:00that my honourable friend and I have been worrying about in the course of
1:13:00 > 1:13:08the passage of this legislation. Although there is going to be a loss
1:13:08 > 1:13:15of jurisdiction, it is going to keep a special status -- EU law is going
1:13:15 > 1:13:20to keep the special status. It is only intended to be temporary,
1:13:20 > 1:13:25although how temporary is speculative and of course I do note
1:13:25 > 1:13:29that clause 53 that says this law can be modified and still retain the
1:13:29 > 1:13:36special status as long as the modification, I assume, is not
1:13:36 > 1:13:43dramatic that it is bread clear that it should lose it. Different from
1:13:43 > 1:13:48replacement. That I suspect is because the Government knows the
1:13:48 > 1:13:52situation may continue for decades to come. And yet in the middle of
1:13:52 > 1:14:01that, the charter is removed. And leaving aside the other issues
1:14:01 > 1:14:05concerning the charter which I have touched on and I don't want to go
1:14:05 > 1:14:11back over again, it creates an unusual circumstance because
1:14:11 > 1:14:17European Union law was always intended to be purposive and one of
1:14:17 > 1:14:21the purposes is to give effect to the fundamental principles under
1:14:21 > 1:14:27which the European Union is supposed to operate. And yet what we are
1:14:27 > 1:14:31doing is removing the bench mark under which this law is supposed to
1:14:31 > 1:14:39operate. Because the charter will no longer be there, although
1:14:39 > 1:14:42interestingly, and I think this is an acknowledgement by the Government
1:14:42 > 1:14:49of the problem they have got, they then essentially in the next clauses
1:14:49 > 1:14:53allowed the charter and general principles of European Union law to
1:14:53 > 1:15:02continue to be used for the purposes of interpretation. It is very
1:15:02 > 1:15:09unclear how all this in practice is going to work out. That is why I
1:15:09 > 1:15:13tabled my two principal amendments. Amendment eight would allow the
1:15:13 > 1:15:20retention of the charter. It provides an easy route to ensuring
1:15:20 > 1:15:25this legal framework is retained, but for the reasons we have been
1:15:25 > 1:15:28debating, there are serious issues surrounding it and that is why I
1:15:28 > 1:15:33personally think it is probably wrong to seek to pursue that. Then
1:15:33 > 1:15:38there is the question in schedule one of what we do with general
1:15:38 > 1:15:42principles of European Union law. They are undefined as to what they
1:15:42 > 1:15:48are but I assume that if the Government is content to articulate
1:15:48 > 1:15:53the existence of general principles, it has done enough research to
1:15:53 > 1:16:00establish two is an satisfaction that general principles do exist and
1:16:00 > 1:16:03indeed the fundamental principles in the charter, but the very ones that
1:16:03 > 1:16:08are not the ones that are going to disappear on the day we leave. I
1:16:08 > 1:16:14give way to my right honourable friend.Isn't the important part
1:16:14 > 1:16:18about clause five that any future act of this Parliament takes the
1:16:18 > 1:16:24premise that if there is a problem, this Parliament can sort it out
1:16:24 > 1:16:29definitively and that deals with the interest of all parties concerned?
1:16:29 > 1:16:35My right honourable friend is almost makes my case for me because he is
1:16:35 > 1:16:39right that insofar as we want to depart from anything, this house
1:16:39 > 1:16:46once we have left the European Union can do what it likes and anything we
1:16:46 > 1:16:51can act there after, the supremacy of European Union law is entirely
1:16:51 > 1:16:58removed. We can do exactly what we pleased except for we will be locked
1:16:58 > 1:17:05in in maintaining quality with the European Union lot. I will however
1:17:05 > 1:17:10refrain from straying too far into that area. Can I make some progress
1:17:10 > 1:17:15for a moment? The question is, is there some merit in keeping the
1:17:15 > 1:17:22right to bring a challenge and using general principles of European Union
1:17:22 > 1:17:28bar? I have to say I would have thought myself that there is. I
1:17:28 > 1:17:37tried to work through in my mind the importance of this.
1:17:37 > 1:17:46-- the firstly, we may have retained EU law which is deficient,
1:17:46 > 1:17:50defective, does not operate properly, or in a capricious or
1:17:50 > 1:17:57unfair manner. It might be disproportionate, for example. At
1:17:57 > 1:18:03the moment, the only remedy unless they bring in the Human Rights Act
1:18:03 > 1:18:09would be to apply the law, and somebody points out that it is
1:18:09 > 1:18:21working badly.I want to check before he goes any further, is he
1:18:21 > 1:18:31referring in his observations about the schedule, to retained general
1:18:31 > 1:18:35principles of EU law or new ones post Brexit? If he's talking about
1:18:35 > 1:18:40the retained ones I have a great deal of sympathy. It seems to me to
1:18:40 > 1:18:43import rights of challenge which rely on later development would be
1:18:43 > 1:18:50against the principle.Absolutely right and we are of one mind. The
1:18:50 > 1:18:58principles which were seen to exist at the date of excellent.I'm not
1:18:58 > 1:19:04surprised he and I are thinking alike but doesn't he think in many
1:19:04 > 1:19:15ways that his amendment ten should be recast so that it changes the
1:19:15 > 1:19:24drafting not to remove it but to change the words to any of the
1:19:24 > 1:19:29retained general principles. I'm grateful to my right honourable
1:19:29 > 1:19:37friend. Whatever merits I have as a lawyer, I am not a parliamentary
1:19:37 > 1:19:41draughtsman. I also gently point out that in an amendment to get my
1:19:41 > 1:19:44amendments -- in an effort to get my amendments and they were drafted
1:19:44 > 1:19:50with a wet towel around my head at 30 minutes past midnight the night
1:19:50 > 1:19:54before the second reading, and I'm sure they are capable of
1:19:54 > 1:20:01improvement. It is very unusual for an amendment to be accepted just
1:20:01 > 1:20:08like that, particularly at committee stage. There are ways in which this
1:20:08 > 1:20:16can be approached and my honourable friend, the Solicitor General, with
1:20:16 > 1:20:24whom I've had an opportunity for a chat, has made clear he thinks I
1:20:24 > 1:20:29have been too Draconian in deleting clauses one, two, three. On the
1:20:29 > 1:20:37other hand, there are other clauses which I find rather concerning. I
1:20:37 > 1:20:44will confine myself to three at the moment.On this point of the
1:20:44 > 1:20:48drafting, so far as I'm aware, the government has absolutely no answer
1:20:48 > 1:20:53to the extremely clear case my honourable friend has made, about
1:20:53 > 1:20:58the proper way of protecting these cases in future. The obvious thing
1:20:58 > 1:21:01is for the government to accept these amendments today because on
1:21:01 > 1:21:06reports they can come back and start correcting the drafting amendments
1:21:06 > 1:21:12to which I'm sure my right honourable friend would be wholly
1:21:12 > 1:21:17receptive. I would not welcome some vague reassurances that they will
1:21:17 > 1:21:23think about it and maybe come back. The drafting can be corrected later
1:21:23 > 1:21:26but the point is my honourable friend is making need to be
1:21:26 > 1:21:33confirmed today.My honourable friend makes a learning point and
1:21:33 > 1:21:38highlights the difficulties which government backbenchers have which
1:21:38 > 1:21:42is the extent to which they should accept assurances from the front
1:21:42 > 1:21:49bench. That is depending on how detailed the assurance doors and
1:21:49 > 1:21:54whether it has some specificity to it. I would have to say I think my
1:21:54 > 1:22:02judgment on this as to whether I might press it is dependent on how
1:22:02 > 1:22:07specific the front bench can be in recognising this is an issue that
1:22:07 > 1:22:12has got to be addressed. Even if there are areas that need to be
1:22:12 > 1:22:17debated, this should be a core issue about the ability to bring a right
1:22:17 > 1:22:22of action in domestic law based on the failure to comply when it
1:22:22 > 1:22:29concerns the operation of retained EU law and also, I have to say,
1:22:29 > 1:22:38because the wave it has supremacy, it must be possible that there might
1:22:38 > 1:22:42be instances in which domestic law would be altered. The government
1:22:42 > 1:22:52cannot argue that is extraordinary because they have enacted this
1:22:52 > 1:22:58legislation in a way that allows for the possibility of UK domestic law
1:22:58 > 1:23:08being quashed. That will be for a temporary period but I am unable to
1:23:08 > 1:23:15understand how we get a situation where the government is allowing for
1:23:15 > 1:23:21the supremacy of EU law but removes the principles which moderated, make
1:23:21 > 1:23:26sure it cannot be abused, and in those areas which were within
1:23:26 > 1:23:28competence, provides a framework under which government is
1:23:28 > 1:23:36undertaking to operate unless or until it repeals the bits of
1:23:36 > 1:23:44retained legislation it is brooding and. Before my honourable friend
1:23:44 > 1:23:50gets up, the big argument against EU law is it was either created by this
1:23:50 > 1:24:04foreign body or inflicted on us so we hatched to enact it -- had to
1:24:04 > 1:24:10enact it. In those circumstances I find it a bit or if we start arguing
1:24:10 > 1:24:15that in view of where it comes from, the possibility of knocking it on
1:24:15 > 1:24:19its head because it does not comply with its own general principles
1:24:19 > 1:24:26should be abandoned.I hope my friend will not go down the rabbit
1:24:26 > 1:24:37hole my other friend has suggested, accepting this incongruous proposal
1:24:37 > 1:24:41when it involves a fundamental principle of constitutional
1:24:41 > 1:24:49supremacy. My honourable friend does understand that, I'm sure. He is
1:24:49 > 1:24:54identifying a number of question marks, but I suggest it would be
1:24:54 > 1:25:10very wise and deeds to follow the advice.I understand that they are
1:25:10 > 1:25:19putting together a package which enables us move transition from our
1:25:19 > 1:25:26presence within the EU to outside it. That requires an adjustment to
1:25:26 > 1:25:30his thinking about Parliamentary sovereignty which the government has
1:25:30 > 1:25:37been required to acknowledge. In those circumstances it does not seem
1:25:37 > 1:25:48to be pushing the boundaries further and nor should it be seen as a
1:25:48 > 1:25:53treasonable article when they are the very thing which has presented
1:25:53 > 1:26:02the EU turning into an even worse tyranny. Listening to him, that is
1:26:02 > 1:26:09how the impression has come across. He sees it as tyrannical. I simply
1:26:09 > 1:26:19make that point. I don't wish to Labour it.Isn't there an important
1:26:19 > 1:26:25change once we leave the EU in that the European Court of Justice would
1:26:25 > 1:26:32not accept the Court of Human Rights because it would not accept a higher
1:26:32 > 1:26:34court could intervene with any rulings and it needed protections
1:26:34 > 1:26:44within a system that are provided within our system.My honourable
1:26:44 > 1:26:50friend makes an interesting point. I slightly question the extent to
1:26:50 > 1:26:56which we've had clear evidence. I know there has been a reluctance to
1:26:56 > 1:27:04accept any higher authority. He is right it is one of the reasons why
1:27:04 > 1:27:09the charter came into being, to make sure of compliance. But I think it
1:27:09 > 1:27:15is a rather more hypothetical than actual state of affairs although
1:27:15 > 1:27:18such a problem might exist in the future. In any event we are not
1:27:18 > 1:27:24dealing with just matters covered by the EC HR because of the very
1:27:24 > 1:27:29reasons we were debating earlier, and in the way in which the first
1:27:29 > 1:27:31Amendment was moved by the honourable gentleman, the member for
1:27:31 > 1:27:38Nottingham East. I simply say to my right honourable friend is that this
1:27:38 > 1:27:45issue has got to be addressed. As I said earlier, I recognise that if my
1:27:45 > 1:27:50amendment is not as good as it might be, and could be improved upon, and
1:27:50 > 1:27:53if the government can give me a adequate assurance which is beyond
1:27:53 > 1:28:02vague assurance then I will be content not to press amendment ten
1:28:02 > 1:28:05to the vote. But this issue is not going to go away and I always worry
1:28:05 > 1:28:11with the government in this sort of dialogue that one does not want to
1:28:11 > 1:28:16be just soft soap off and then there is a road crash when we come to the
1:28:16 > 1:28:20report stage of this bill and I cannot support the government. I
1:28:20 > 1:28:28hope they can be resolved by consensus. That is why I think the
1:28:28 > 1:28:36issue we are debating today, a very important one, but in the interim
1:28:36 > 1:28:41the best solution is to use something along the lines of what
1:28:41 > 1:28:47I've done in amendment ten to make sure principles of EU law can
1:28:47 > 1:28:53continue to be invoked. As the transition goes on. I assume that
1:28:53 > 1:28:59much of it will disappear but I hope it will continue to be relevant for
1:28:59 > 1:29:07some time to come. I have three other amendments. They are very
1:29:07 > 1:29:17simple. They concern the wording in clause five, any enacting or a rule
1:29:17 > 1:29:21of law. Every single person I've spoken to does not understand why
1:29:21 > 1:29:30the words appear on the face of this bill. Ultimately rule of law a rule
1:29:30 > 1:29:36of common law and in so far as a rule of common law is displaced by
1:29:36 > 1:29:41statute, it will be displays of itself by the courts. It does not
1:29:41 > 1:29:48need to be spelt out in the legislation. I draw some comfort
1:29:48 > 1:29:54that the very distinguished lawyer working in this building shares my
1:29:54 > 1:30:00view it is incomprehensible as to why it has been put in. I would not
1:30:00 > 1:30:05necessarily rooted to the vote if required to do so but I hope the
1:30:05 > 1:30:08government might provide a positive response and I'm grateful to the for
1:30:08 > 1:30:18listening to me.Thank you indeed. It is a very genuine and real
1:30:18 > 1:30:24pleasure to follow the Right Honourable member who made his case
1:30:24 > 1:30:29and the case sheared from many on both sides extremely well and very
1:30:29 > 1:30:38convincingly. I rise to move amendment 46 which seeks to keep the
1:30:38 > 1:30:43Charter of fundamental rights in the EU retained law. It retains the
1:30:43 > 1:30:52principles of the Frankie Bridge ruling after pre-Brexit cases.
1:30:52 > 1:30:57Amendments to eat five, 86 and 87 which make amendments to continue
1:30:57 > 1:31:01for a transitional period and Amendment 336 which makes provision
1:31:01 > 1:31:06to retaining existing principles within domestic law until the end of
1:31:06 > 1:31:15the transitional arrangements. This debate could probably have a few
1:31:15 > 1:31:19more sentences in my stride before taking an intervention but I
1:31:19 > 1:31:24anticipate I will be taking interventions. It raises some
1:31:24 > 1:31:31fundamental principles on the transition of EU law and on the
1:31:31 > 1:31:38important role of this house in holding the government to account
1:31:38 > 1:31:43for its commitments. On that point last week, the focus of the debate
1:31:43 > 1:31:48was on the attempt of the government to unravel the Prime Minister's own
1:31:48 > 1:31:51pledges on the transitional arrangements in her Florence speech
1:31:51 > 1:32:00through the imposition of a defined exit date for all purposes. The
1:32:00 > 1:32:09Minister made a good attempt to defend the indefensible and not
1:32:09 > 1:32:13commit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European
1:32:13 > 1:32:16Union applying throughout the transitional period because it was
1:32:16 > 1:32:21not the government line at the time. It would have been helpful if number
1:32:21 > 1:32:25ten had said what it has now said, but the Court of Justice will have
1:32:25 > 1:32:29jurisdiction throughout the transitional period and then he
1:32:29 > 1:32:35would not have been left in a mess. That was the focus of last week's
1:32:35 > 1:32:41debate. This week it is about making sure the proper transfer of rights
1:32:41 > 1:32:46and protections onto the statute book and this is something the
1:32:46 > 1:32:54government has made strong claims on.
1:32:54 > 1:32:58They made two berry cure propositions in relation to this
1:32:58 > 1:33:03bill, it insures certainty and legal continuity through the creation of
1:33:03 > 1:33:08this category of retained EU law and in the second reading the Secretary
1:33:08 > 1:33:11of State for exiting the European Union said and I called, the key
1:33:11 > 1:33:16point of this bill is to avoid and significant and serious gaps in the
1:33:16 > 1:33:22statute book. And the second claim is that it does not remove any
1:33:22 > 1:33:30underlying fundamental rights which exist and yet, clause 54 of the
1:33:30 > 1:33:36spill flies in the face of both of those claims. But clause as has been
1:33:36 > 1:33:40pointed out on from domestic law after today the Charter of
1:33:40 > 1:33:46fundamental rights through which all EU law is interpreted. And failure
1:33:46 > 1:33:50to transpose the Charter into EU retained law creates a gap in the
1:33:50 > 1:33:54statute book and as the equalities and human rights Commissioner has
1:33:54 > 1:34:00stated, the bill as it stands will not achieve the government's stated
1:34:00 > 1:34:04aim of non-regression on social justice issues. And that's something
1:34:04 > 1:34:09very serious for this House to take account of. Now we recognise that
1:34:09 > 1:34:12steps will be required to make the Charter operable and there has been
1:34:12 > 1:34:19some debate already on that. In domestic law. There is no reason why
1:34:19 > 1:34:23this House could not direct courts in the cave to interpret retained
1:34:23 > 1:34:27law and take it into account, Luxembourg interpretations as is the
1:34:27 > 1:34:34case with human rights act and in the Strasberg caught. But this
1:34:34 > 1:34:40matters and let me explain why the inclusion of the Charter is critical
1:34:40 > 1:34:44to maintaining and upholding those rights and I will, at this stage.I
1:34:44 > 1:34:48am grateful to the honourable gentleman. Is he about to move on to
1:34:48 > 1:34:57explain fight it is that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith fought so hard to
1:34:57 > 1:35:01obtain protocol 36, I think that was in the list bomb treaty which the
1:35:01 > 1:35:06Conservative Party of course opposed but would he also explain at the
1:35:06 > 1:35:12same time how it is that advancing the Charter of fundamental rights
1:35:12 > 1:35:17and the Charter, we are not able to be able to pass such legislation as
1:35:17 > 1:35:26we wish to in this place? -- Lisburn.I thank the honour of a
1:35:26 > 1:35:31member for his intervention. I wasn't about to go on to that but I
1:35:31 > 1:35:39clearly am now. He will note that the Chancellor -- Charter wasn't
1:35:39 > 1:35:45binding but was made legally binding by the treaty in 2007 and came into
1:35:45 > 1:35:52force in 2009 and has gained as the right honourable member appointed
1:35:52 > 1:35:57out increased insignificance, the rights that it contains have come
1:35:57 > 1:36:01more visible and correspondingly more effective. Labour supported the
1:36:01 > 1:36:07Charter then and we support it now because it has enhanced and improved
1:36:07 > 1:36:10European human rights protection and in doing so has significantly
1:36:10 > 1:36:14developed the quality of human rights protection in the UK and the
1:36:14 > 1:36:19wider point he makes isn't relevant to the issue under discussion now. I
1:36:19 > 1:36:27will.The Charter of course only applies for national authorities
1:36:27 > 1:36:30aren't implementing EU law. Does the honourable gentleman not agree with
1:36:30 > 1:36:36me at risks of being retained creating a confusing consistency if
1:36:36 > 1:36:39citizens have powerful rights to strike down some legislation but not
1:36:39 > 1:36:47others? Is the case you do the whole thing or none at all?The Charter is
1:36:47 > 1:36:56key and it's a point that I will come to. Ensuring that retained law
1:36:56 > 1:37:01is treated properly and the same rights of enforcement continue in
1:37:01 > 1:37:08the future. Without the Charter those rights are significantly in
1:37:08 > 1:37:16the nicht and access to them diminished. Let me proceed with the
1:37:16 > 1:37:22point that I was making in relation to the way the Charter goes wider
1:37:22 > 1:37:26than the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on human rights.
1:37:26 > 1:37:31I hope I'm right in suggesting the government accepts because it was as
1:37:31 > 1:37:37other members have already pointed out the Secretary of State for the
1:37:37 > 1:37:43European Union himself, that he brought before the High Court in
1:37:43 > 1:37:482015 against the then Home Secretary and now Prime Minister, worried
1:37:48 > 1:37:53about the data retention and investigatory Powers act impact on
1:37:53 > 1:37:57MPs ability to communicate with constituents wanted eventually. He
1:37:57 > 1:38:04cited the Charter with his lawyers, arguing that it went beyond the
1:38:04 > 1:38:07European can do in and granted further protection. He relied upon
1:38:07 > 1:38:11the Charter precisely because of provided greatly human rights
1:38:11 > 1:38:19protection and was provided for by UK law. And even the caselaw of the
1:38:19 > 1:38:23European Court of Human Rights. Despite this the has not indicated
1:38:23 > 1:38:26which decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union under
1:38:26 > 1:38:31the charter that it is a grease with. Moreover the explanations to
1:38:31 > 1:38:36the EU Withdrawal Bill justifies the decision to exclude the Charter from
1:38:36 > 1:38:40retained EU law as follows and I quote... The Charter did not create
1:38:40 > 1:38:45new rights but rather codified rights and principles that already
1:38:45 > 1:38:52existed in EU law. By converting this into UK law the underlying
1:38:52 > 1:38:55rights and principles will also be converted into UK law as provided
1:38:55 > 1:39:01for in this bill. If that were the case of would be fine but it's
1:39:01 > 1:39:08clearly not. Drawing on existing rights, the Charter is set out a new
1:39:08 > 1:39:11framework for human rights protection under EU law. The rights
1:39:11 > 1:39:15contained in the Charter might have existed in the EU for decades which
1:39:15 > 1:39:19is a point that the government relies upon that that's not enough,
1:39:19 > 1:39:23the whole point of the Charter was that nobody could verify those
1:39:23 > 1:39:28rights were there as sources and identify the source of a right as
1:39:28 > 1:39:33the lawyers amongst us will know, is imperative to securing effective
1:39:33 > 1:39:38recourse. Therefore perhaps in his contribution, the Minister could
1:39:38 > 1:39:42clarify whether or not the government has succeeded where
1:39:42 > 1:39:48others have not in comprehensively identifying every single source of
1:39:48 > 1:39:54these rights. And if not, how do they plan to uphold the same levels
1:39:54 > 1:40:00of protection for these rights once we have left the European Union
1:40:00 > 1:40:03because a right without effective recourse is rendered effectively
1:40:03 > 1:40:11meaningless. By compiling and codified in these rights in a single
1:40:11 > 1:40:14document the Charter effectively created new rights and certainly new
1:40:14 > 1:40:19protections. In short, the Charter is the most effective key to
1:40:19 > 1:40:24unlocking vital rights and the failure to transpose it figured
1:40:24 > 1:40:29operable in UK law is lock those rights of way and Tinai UK citizens
1:40:29 > 1:40:36the key to accessing them. Now on that point of data protection, the
1:40:36 > 1:40:39Secretary of State relied upon, and upon which my honourable friend the
1:40:39 > 1:40:46Member for East Ham races in his amendment which we support, the
1:40:46 > 1:40:50right to data protection exists in various documents in directives and
1:40:50 > 1:40:54regulations that was only by virtue of the Charter created and expressed
1:40:54 > 1:40:58right to data protection in article eight that gave us the right to be
1:40:58 > 1:41:03forgotten. And it's not just data protection rights that are extended
1:41:03 > 1:41:07by the Charter, it starts in Article one which includes the right to
1:41:07 > 1:41:13human dignity. This does not exist as an enforceable right in common
1:41:13 > 1:41:20law or statute law, applicable to retained law post Brexit. So let me
1:41:20 > 1:41:24ask the Minister when he responds, how will this right be enforced
1:41:24 > 1:41:32after exit de if the Charter is and retained? I will.Would he agree his
1:41:32 > 1:41:38proposals would provoke more uncertainty and raise more questions
1:41:38 > 1:41:42than answers, for example, the considerable reference to the union,
1:41:42 > 1:41:47to citizens, to the right to vote and stand in European elections,
1:41:47 > 1:41:53wouldn't they all be at odds with us being a non-member state upon our
1:41:53 > 1:42:01leaving the European Union?No, and the right honourable and learned
1:42:01 > 1:42:05member for Beaconsfield answered that point when it was made by
1:42:05 > 1:42:08others. Clearly, there are provisions within the Charter of
1:42:08 > 1:42:12which would have to be amended to become operable and that was a point
1:42:12 > 1:42:16that I made a few moments ago. But there are fundamental Whites
1:42:16 > 1:42:20included within that for which the protections of our citizens would be
1:42:20 > 1:42:25reduced if they aren't not carried forward and I am going to go on to
1:42:25 > 1:42:30eliminate the point a little further.OK, not point. Is he
1:42:30 > 1:42:36proposing there should be a raising of the document and some kind of
1:42:36 > 1:42:39surgery of the Charter because done before it's complied three UK
1:42:39 > 1:42:44Lochore isn't that right those questions are principal and policy
1:42:44 > 1:42:48are not rightly debated in this bill which the purpose is to provide
1:42:48 > 1:42:53legal certainty and continuity but matters for wider Parliamentary
1:42:53 > 1:43:00debate and scrutiny and indeed, democratic process?I'm genuinely
1:43:00 > 1:43:03puzzled why the honourable lady's point because she could be making it
1:43:03 > 1:43:11in relation to all of the several thousand aspects of law that are
1:43:11 > 1:43:14being transposed, it could relate to every other part of this bill. We
1:43:14 > 1:43:21are going to have to go through processes of adjustment to ensure
1:43:21 > 1:43:24effective operability, the question that needs to be answered and I hope
1:43:24 > 1:43:29it will be answered by the Minister when he takes, rises to the dispatch
1:43:29 > 1:43:35box is why you uniquely, is the Charter for fundamental rights being
1:43:35 > 1:43:41treated differently and removed at this stage?I will indeed. I'm
1:43:41 > 1:43:46really grateful to my honourable friend, he's making a very powerful
1:43:46 > 1:43:49case and anticipation of the Minister's speech, increases minute
1:43:49 > 1:43:53by minute as the case is advanced. Does he share my puzzlement, first
1:43:53 > 1:43:57of all that given the government's stated objective for this bill was
1:43:57 > 1:44:01to move everything across, the one thing they have decided to leave
1:44:01 > 1:44:05behind is the Charter and secondly, is he also puzzled by the argument
1:44:05 > 1:44:09we heard from the benches opposite that nothing will be lost, nothing
1:44:09 > 1:44:12will be lost by the disappearance of the Charter and yet we've already
1:44:12 > 1:44:16heard powerful testimony and speeches including a point raised by
1:44:16 > 1:44:21my honourable friend, when he referred to the judgement in the
1:44:21 > 1:44:28tobacco case where the charter clearly had an important impact in
1:44:28 > 1:44:32enabling, in that case, the government to enforce its right, its
1:44:32 > 1:44:35desire to have plain packaging never mind the reasons why the Secretary
1:44:35 > 1:44:40of State and a former life decided to call upon it in trying to sue the
1:44:40 > 1:44:41government. Isn't there an incompatibility between the
1:44:41 > 1:44:48positions?My right noble friend is absolutely right and I like him, I'm
1:44:48 > 1:44:51looking forward to the Minister attempting to square the circle on
1:44:51 > 1:44:59that one. Because, it's one thing for the government to be arguing
1:44:59 > 1:45:02this needs to be removed and for others to say it makes no
1:45:02 > 1:45:07difference, let me illustrate other areas admits the difference, article
1:45:07 > 1:45:1024, it has been alluded to in earlier contributions which gives
1:45:10 > 1:45:14effect to the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child. While we are a
1:45:14 > 1:45:19signatory to that convention, but does not provide the same legal
1:45:19 > 1:45:24protection simply as a convention signatory as is provided through the
1:45:24 > 1:45:28incorporation of the Charter. Let me take the right to a fair hearing
1:45:28 > 1:45:33which goes beyond the European Convention on Human Rights, article
1:45:33 > 1:45:38six, which is a right to a third trial. By applying in civil rights
1:45:38 > 1:45:47and obligations on criminal charges. So in the ZZ case the Court of
1:45:47 > 1:45:53Justice held that the Charter Article 47 right to a fair hearing
1:45:53 > 1:45:55applied to immigration cases so there are significant issues at
1:45:55 > 1:46:01stake. Or we can look at Article 30 two which requires that academic
1:46:01 > 1:46:06freedom shall be respected and I'm sure that with the possible
1:46:06 > 1:46:10exception of some government fits, the honourable member who was keen
1:46:10 > 1:46:15to see the reading list and the curricular of adversity lecturers to
1:46:15 > 1:46:19make sure they were teaching Brexit correctly, but that was a bull
1:46:19 > 1:46:21exception we would agree on both sides of the House academic freedom
1:46:21 > 1:46:28is an important principle, not secured anywhere else. So how does
1:46:28 > 1:46:30the government anticipate these rights will be enforced in the
1:46:30 > 1:46:37absence of the Charter? And that includes Fuchs aspects of the EU are
1:46:37 > 1:46:43key UK domestic law could be used to guarantee these rights. And it's an
1:46:43 > 1:46:48important question. But it isn't just that it malicious rights, the
1:46:48 > 1:46:52Charter has transformed access to human rights protection as the House
1:46:52 > 1:46:59of Commons library briefing makes clear. It's not just that the
1:46:59 > 1:47:02Charter contains more rights than the convention, but codify is
1:47:02 > 1:47:06existing rights in one place. When they compared the Charter to the
1:47:06 > 1:47:11human rights act we see that it has a wider class of applicants who can
1:47:11 > 1:47:17use it. Anyone with a sufficient interest can apply for a judicial
1:47:17 > 1:47:21review based on the Charter and it can also be relied upon in other
1:47:21 > 1:47:24types of cases for example implement tribunal claims that are within the
1:47:24 > 1:47:29scope of EU law. By contrast, claims under the human rights act can only
1:47:29 > 1:47:36be made when an individual is a victim of a rights violation.
1:47:36 > 1:47:43Very grateful for giving way. The way that I write is used to be
1:47:43 > 1:47:47guaranteed is a combination of common law and statute law. I don't
1:47:47 > 1:47:51see what threat he has in mind to these rights, were any threat to
1:47:51 > 1:47:55emerge they would either be struck down by the Supreme Court or by
1:47:55 > 1:48:03Parliament.I'm puzzled by his comment. EU retained law will
1:48:03 > 1:48:10effectively be statute law and the charter were will be the way that
1:48:10 > 1:48:21that is carried forward. I'm not quite clear what he's getting at.
1:48:21 > 1:48:26Listening to what he said about Article six, I think he said it only
1:48:26 > 1:48:35applied in criminal cases. For my own experience it was something we
1:48:35 > 1:48:41took into account in immigration cases and other tribunal cases. It
1:48:41 > 1:48:44was some of the applications of procedures of this house which might
1:48:44 > 1:48:50not have been compatible with that right. It is much wider than he
1:48:50 > 1:49:02suggested.It does not apply in all civil cases. It is effectively a
1:49:02 > 1:49:16narrowing. I will give way. My point is our rights will be guaranteed
1:49:16 > 1:49:20once we've left by the Supreme Court and the common law or the
1:49:20 > 1:49:25application of our statute law and I cannot think of a right that he and
1:49:25 > 1:49:30I value which will be destroyed because we've not incorporated the
1:49:30 > 1:49:36charter. They will be guaranteed by these ancient and tested method.
1:49:36 > 1:49:45We're talking about rights such as exiting the European Union relied
1:49:45 > 1:49:54upon. That point is clear. The comparison of the charter, as well
1:49:54 > 1:50:05as the wider class of applicants, it allows for stronger remedies. If any
1:50:05 > 1:50:11national court finds any national law is incompatible, it must this
1:50:11 > 1:50:17apply contravening legislation. We have exercised some of the arguments
1:50:17 > 1:50:20around this issue but this is stronger than a notification of
1:50:20 > 1:50:26incompatibility. We should be in no doubt. Losing the charter means
1:50:26 > 1:50:37losing rights. Let me turn to a separate... Has the honourable
1:50:37 > 1:50:47gentleman considered the impact in relation to the question of national
1:50:47 > 1:50:53security and case law, not to mention many people who would like
1:50:53 > 1:51:10to have this reported find it extremely difficult.
1:51:10 > 1:51:16In his keenness to tackle the argument, the honourable member has
1:51:16 > 1:51:24missed the point. That is nothing to do with the charter. Let me turn to
1:51:24 > 1:51:29a separate but related points on schedule one of the bill which
1:51:29 > 1:51:36states that there is no right of action based on failure to comply
1:51:36 > 1:51:45with general principles. It prevents courts from ruling that. Action was
1:51:45 > 1:51:49taken based on it was not compatible with general principles. Damages are
1:51:49 > 1:52:03not allowed. General principles are rendered irrelevant.
1:52:08 > 1:52:10This in trenches them regardless of how they are implemented and the
1:52:10 > 1:52:14date of that retention would be the end of the transitional period. Let
1:52:14 > 1:52:29me turn briefly to the last amendments on this rule. There are
1:52:29 > 1:52:35similar amendments which we support and I want to give them the
1:52:35 > 1:52:45opportunity to make the case.A point of clarification, when he said
1:52:45 > 1:52:54the date of retention be the end of the transitional period, did he mean
1:52:54 > 1:52:58no new principles after that would apply or did he mean the retention
1:52:58 > 1:53:15Woodend.Clearly, if they were taken at face value, continuing to operate
1:53:15 > 1:53:18at the transition practically as if you were still in membership, the
1:53:18 > 1:53:26new principles would apply all are not following the end of it.If we
1:53:26 > 1:53:35are going into a transitional period and retaining the architecture of EU
1:53:35 > 1:53:41law, to try to leave at the end of the transition and go back to the
1:53:41 > 1:53:45status of retaining EU law at the date we moved into transition would
1:53:45 > 1:53:48be utterly unrealistic. It would have to be from the date one moves
1:53:48 > 1:53:59into the final departure.I thank the Right Honourable member who made
1:53:59 > 1:54:04the case much more effectively than I did. It is absolutely right. Very
1:54:04 > 1:54:12briefly, let me say this also raises some important issues of
1:54:12 > 1:54:17accountability. Surely it an oversight on the government's part,
1:54:17 > 1:54:22I would expect they accept the right to damages should be available in
1:54:22 > 1:54:27case there is a breach of community law before exiting. And indeed
1:54:27 > 1:54:38before the end of the transitional period. I would be looking for some
1:54:38 > 1:54:43clarification and hopefully they would accept what they are seeking
1:54:43 > 1:54:50to do on the amendments. We are pleased to support new clauses 16,
1:54:50 > 1:55:12together with amendments to 97, 298, just the clarity. In concluding, let
1:55:12 > 1:55:16me turn back to amendment 46, we need some honesty from the
1:55:16 > 1:55:22government. This house has not authorised the government to use
1:55:22 > 1:55:26Brexit as a vehicle to deplete the level of human rights in this
1:55:26 > 1:55:32country. If the government wants to reduce rights and protections they
1:55:32 > 1:55:38should say so. We can debate it. What is not acceptable is to pretend
1:55:38 > 1:55:42this bill provides for the transfer of rights and protections when it
1:55:42 > 1:55:52clearly does not. On this side of the house, I will...I am grateful
1:55:52 > 1:55:56for the honourable member giving way. There have been a number of
1:55:56 > 1:55:59statements from the Secretary of State that have said if opposition
1:55:59 > 1:56:05parties are able to identify rights which will not be covered, he is
1:56:05 > 1:56:10very willing to look at them and legislate for them. Given we talked
1:56:10 > 1:56:15about the third category of rights, not those protected by the Human
1:56:15 > 1:56:20Rights Act, not those which will be irrelevant, because in the charter
1:56:20 > 1:56:27they will no longer apply, but that third category of rights, is he
1:56:27 > 1:56:31prepared to take that at face value and work with the government to make
1:56:31 > 1:56:41sure those rights are protected?I think if the government is able to
1:56:41 > 1:56:47both identify the sources of rates in relation to those covered by the
1:56:47 > 1:56:56charter and also able to point out exactly how any deficiencies or gaps
1:56:56 > 1:57:04left by the failure to transpose the charter were identified and the
1:57:04 > 1:57:07outlines what remedies they might bring forward then we'd be happy to
1:57:07 > 1:57:12sit down and talk through those with them but what is absolutely clear
1:57:12 > 1:57:20that artists is we think the government should stick by the word
1:57:20 > 1:57:23and the claims are made in relation to this bill that we need the
1:57:23 > 1:57:28existing level of human rights protection preserved in UK
1:57:28 > 1:57:34legislation and as it stands central to that consolidation is retaining
1:57:34 > 1:57:47that charter. I hope the house will agree and support our amendment.
1:57:47 > 1:57:52Thank you, it's a pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman, and I
1:57:52 > 1:57:55would like to thank honourable members for their contributions to
1:57:55 > 1:58:00the debate, whether in speeches or amendments. The government will
1:58:00 > 1:58:06approach this bill in the spirit of collaboration and I welcome the
1:58:06 > 1:58:10constructive contributions and the diligent scrutiny. I shall address
1:58:10 > 1:58:19clause five. We will make sure we can dwell adequately on the
1:58:19 > 1:58:23provisions of the Bill and on the various issues and amendments that
1:58:23 > 1:58:33have been raised. I'm grateful for that. The fifth cause says they are
1:58:33 > 1:58:36taking back democratic control over our laws and making sure we leave
1:58:36 > 1:58:42the EU in a way that facilitates smooth Brexit minimising legal
1:58:42 > 1:58:46uncertainty. It aims to provide that the laws that apply immediately
1:58:46 > 1:58:52before exiting will continue to apply after we leave but of course,
1:58:52 > 1:58:58the act of leaving the EU means it is inevitable some things will not
1:58:58 > 1:59:02and cannot stay the same. The changes relate to certain aspects
1:59:02 > 1:59:07which are no longer appropriate or which will not make sense when we
1:59:07 > 1:59:10leave the EU because we will cease to be under the obligations which
1:59:10 > 1:59:18apply to us as an EU member state. These provisions are essential.
1:59:18 > 1:59:22Clause five paragraph one and the supremacy of EU law in relation to
1:59:22 > 1:59:30new law. That is crucial if we are to give an effect of the mandate. We
1:59:30 > 1:59:38will make sure it still applies for the sake of legal certainty. That is
1:59:38 > 1:59:45important for mitigating the risks of the legal uncertainty. The risk
1:59:45 > 1:59:48reinforces those critical objectives including by removing the instrument
1:59:48 > 1:59:53of the Charter of fundamental rights as a part of domestic law. I want to
1:59:53 > 2:00:02address that in detail.Can I refer him to article two. My right
2:00:02 > 2:00:15honourable friend in his amazing speech set this was a completely new
2:00:15 > 2:00:19principle to be applied in British law. Isn't it just the translation
2:00:19 > 2:00:28of an existing principle that is in EU law into United Kingdom law the
2:00:28 > 2:00:40critters -- for the purposes of a smooth Brexit.
2:00:42 > 2:00:45While I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention I
2:00:45 > 2:00:49want to address the speech made by my right honourable friend. I do
2:00:49 > 2:00:52agree there is an inherent sense that as the move to change we are
2:00:52 > 2:00:58not going to have things exactly as we had before. I want to draw an
2:00:58 > 2:01:02important distinction. We're leaving the EU and taking back control over
2:01:02 > 2:01:10our laws. This house and honourable members will exercise proper
2:01:10 > 2:01:19democratic control. At the same time the rules will remain the same. The
2:01:19 > 2:01:26snapshot is meaning we are avoiding the putative cliff edge. I will make
2:01:26 > 2:01:31a little bit of progress and then give way. I will address the detail
2:01:31 > 2:01:35of this by reference to amendments that have been tabled. The highlight
2:01:35 > 2:01:43and flag the different concerns. Add a matter of principle I hope all
2:01:43 > 2:01:49honourable members agreed we should not make changes which exacerbate
2:01:49 > 2:01:54the risk of uncertainty. I think that is the point the honourable
2:01:54 > 2:02:01gentleman was making in his last intervention. It would be wrong in
2:02:01 > 2:02:09principle and counter-productive in practice to seek to cling to the
2:02:09 > 2:02:18intrinsic, inextricable features of EU membership. To do so would mean
2:02:18 > 2:02:24greater legal confusion. I know that's not the intention of any
2:02:24 > 2:02:31honourable members. I want to address 16, relating to the charter
2:02:31 > 2:02:35which would introduce a reporting requirement. I'd like to explain why
2:02:35 > 2:02:44that is necessary. The honourable member for Nottingham East in his
2:02:44 > 2:02:51perfectly civil way has things I would like to address. The bill will
2:02:51 > 2:02:59reinforce our human rights framework not initiate. We are making sure the
2:02:59 > 2:03:07substantive EU rules will be retained.
2:03:07 > 2:03:10The government is resolute in that commitment, we have always been and
2:03:10 > 2:03:15we will continue to be weak and freedom for the world, as we have
2:03:15 > 2:03:19demonstrated since Magna Carta through the 1689 Bill of Rights up
2:03:19 > 2:03:24to and including the recent convert is to respecting and remaining a
2:03:24 > 2:03:28party to the European Convention on Human Rights. The addition of the
2:03:28 > 2:03:31honourable members reporting requirement of enhance those
2:03:31 > 2:03:36substantive rights nor will it give this has any better ability to
2:03:36 > 2:03:40scrutinise and clarify how rights will be protected after exit. I will
2:03:40 > 2:03:44come on to say something more about the underlying points he addressed
2:03:44 > 2:03:48and the substance of the Charter in the context of amendments eight and
2:03:48 > 2:03:5146 but let me give him the reassurance that reporting
2:03:51 > 2:03:54requirements are redundant but excluding the charter from the body
2:03:54 > 2:03:58of EU law does not affect the underlying and underpinning
2:03:58 > 2:04:02substantive rights. They are the primary source of rights that
2:04:02 > 2:04:06existed try to the Charter coming into force and the any citizen will
2:04:06 > 2:04:11be able to rely upon in practice. This is not just as government's
2:04:11 > 2:04:16position, it was the last Labour government's position, in fact, Tony
2:04:16 > 2:04:19Blair went for a further than I have today in telling the House on the
2:04:19 > 2:04:2420th of June 2007 and I quote, it is absolutely clear we have an opt out
2:04:24 > 2:04:29from the charter and be for Dame Rosie, all honourable members on
2:04:29 > 2:04:33opposition benches start to run away from the promises made by the last
2:04:33 > 2:04:36Labour government I would remind them of the current spokesperson on
2:04:36 > 2:04:40constitutional affairs for the Labour Party, the noble Lord
2:04:40 > 2:04:47Falkenburg will the other place on the 14th of December 2005, the
2:04:47 > 2:04:52charter lays down existing rights, it is not a legally binding
2:04:52 > 2:05:02document. -- the noble Lord Faulkner. It is right that we will
2:05:02 > 2:05:08be retaining the substantive rights and principles that the charter
2:05:08 > 2:05:11merely sought to codify and I will explain that more shortly but I hope
2:05:11 > 2:05:15on that basis I urge the honourable member to withdraw the procedural
2:05:15 > 2:05:19amendment. I will give way shortly to the honourable lady, I know she
2:05:19 > 2:05:23is supporting some of the amendments. Penrose E, may I not
2:05:23 > 2:05:32turn to the next amendment 297, 298, 299 tabled by my right honourable
2:05:32 > 2:05:38friend the Member for Beaconsfield, also 285, 86, tabled by the right
2:05:38 > 2:05:42honourable member for Islington North. Might right honourable friend
2:05:42 > 2:05:47the Member for Beaconsfield wishes to remove any reference to any rule
2:05:47 > 2:05:50of law, quote unquote which is a reference in the build to common law
2:05:50 > 2:05:56rules in relation to provisions addressing EU law. I stand to be
2:05:56 > 2:06:01corrected, it would allow EU law to trump the common law after the date
2:06:01 > 2:06:08of exit. However, however, this would undermine both of the key
2:06:08 > 2:06:11strategic objectives of the bill, in relation to common law rules
2:06:11 > 2:06:17articulated after exit date that retained EU law, trumps them
2:06:17 > 2:06:19undermining the UK basic constitutional hierarchy that we are
2:06:19 > 2:06:23seeking to restore and affirm. Allow me to make the point and then I will
2:06:23 > 2:06:29give way. Paradoxically, with respect to respect because there are
2:06:29 > 2:06:33two sides to this amendment, the relationship that we retained EU law
2:06:33 > 2:06:36and common-law rules, made up until exit date, The Right Honourable
2:06:36 > 2:06:41Temple Mount's amendment would skew the clear and certain snapshot build
2:06:41 > 2:06:46takes because retained EU law would not supersede common-law rules.
2:06:46 > 2:06:51Removing common from the operation of the bills, the government
2:06:51 > 2:06:54analysis would create considerable uncertainty for business and
2:06:54 > 2:06:58individuals alike.I will give way. I am most grateful for him giving
2:06:58 > 2:07:03way, I wanted these words removed because I think they are completely
2:07:03 > 2:07:06unnecessary, lawyers like to use that wonderful word, they add
2:07:06 > 2:07:12absolutely nothing to the Bill whatsoever and a... The common law
2:07:12 > 2:07:17will be adjusted to the statutory framework within which it operates.
2:07:17 > 2:07:21Somebody clearly came up with this idea, it seems to me rather poor
2:07:21 > 2:07:26drafting and there are others who I went to consult when I was puzzled
2:07:26 > 2:07:29by this has seemed to agree with me and they seem to have spent a
2:07:29 > 2:07:33lifetime drafting precisely the sort of legislation so I was trying to
2:07:33 > 2:07:36help my honourable friend on this matter, not trying to create some
2:07:36 > 2:07:45devilish plot to scupper Brexit at all!I'm very grateful to my right
2:07:45 > 2:07:50honourable friend, I'm not sure for this devilish plot has come from, I
2:07:50 > 2:07:56have made no suggestion of one. But I was simply trying to point out to
2:07:56 > 2:08:01my honourable friend that there is a risk and the honourable member, some
2:08:01 > 2:08:07of the amendments actually host the risk of creating more not less
2:08:07 > 2:08:10uncertainty, notwithstanding the perfectly laudable and genuine aims
2:08:10 > 2:08:14with which they have been tabled and I would make this brief point, if
2:08:14 > 2:08:17Mike right honourable friend's amendment on this point were made
2:08:17 > 2:08:21and would no longer be clear how common-law Rosewood interacts with a
2:08:21 > 2:08:25particular provision of retained EU law and the event of a conflict
2:08:25 > 2:08:30clean the two and across a whole range of issues from animal welfare
2:08:30 > 2:08:33to competition law, the concern is such an approach would create
2:08:33 > 2:08:35uncertainty as to what legal position citizens and businesses
2:08:35 > 2:08:40find themselves in. I'm unsure this is not the intention of the
2:08:40 > 2:08:43honourable gentleman, I am not looking for devilish plots on any
2:08:43 > 2:08:47side of the House but I do fear that we be practical reality. I want to
2:08:47 > 2:08:53now,, Dame Rosie, I will give way to my noble friend.The devilish
2:08:53 > 2:09:03plot... Could I refer my honourable friend to chapter 12 of Lord
2:09:03 > 2:09:06Bingham's magisterial work, the rule of law and the sovereignty of
2:09:06 > 2:09:11Parliament. The reference here to the rule of law is in this context
2:09:11 > 2:09:18highly relevant, simply because it refers indirectly, or directly to
2:09:18 > 2:09:22the issue of constitutional supremacy of lawmaking and
2:09:22 > 2:09:26construction placed upon it by the courts themselves. On that issue
2:09:26 > 2:09:31rule of law I think does have considerable salience.The
2:09:31 > 2:09:36honourable gentleman makes a very considerate and thoughtful point.
2:09:36 > 2:09:39The last point I will make on these particular amendments is that given
2:09:39 > 2:09:44the changes we are making for the purposes of greater certainty and
2:09:44 > 2:09:49clarity, it is I would respectfully suggest to the honourable gentleman,
2:09:49 > 2:09:53the right honourable gentleman and members across the House, it's worth
2:09:53 > 2:09:56having clarity and certainty on this point. I want to turn to amendments
2:09:56 > 2:10:01to hundred and 85 and 286, we discussed similar amendments on day
2:10:01 > 2:10:05one of committee in relation to clause six and for the same reasons
2:10:05 > 2:10:08given during that debate we cannot support those particular amendments
2:10:08 > 2:10:13and I would note against the Prime Minister has set out in her speech
2:10:13 > 2:10:17in Florence that and I quote, the United Kingdom will cease to be a
2:10:17 > 2:10:22member of the European Union on the 20 length of March 2019, Dame Rosie,
2:10:22 > 2:10:27I am not going to speculate, I will make some progress, on the contents
2:10:27 > 2:10:30of a withdrawal agreement. The government will do whatever is
2:10:30 > 2:10:34necessary to prepare for exit, we have made clear separate primary
2:10:34 > 2:10:38legislation will be brought forward to implement the terms of the
2:10:38 > 2:10:41withdrawal agreement and with that in mind those particular amendments
2:10:41 > 2:10:46would pre-empt and prejudge the outcome of the negotiations and
2:10:46 > 2:10:49produce a straitjacket of inflexibility for any limitation
2:10:49 > 2:10:52period. For all of us and this has committed to securing the very best
2:10:52 > 2:10:56deal with EU friends and partners I respectfully suggest amendments
2:10:56 > 2:11:00would undermine that object and I urge the right honourable gentleman,
2:11:00 > 2:11:04the leader of the Labour Party to withdraw.I will give way. I am
2:11:04 > 2:11:09indebted for his giving way. He said earlier one of his guiding
2:11:09 > 2:11:13principles was not to exacerbate any legal uncertainty. The GC, the
2:11:13 > 2:11:18exiting the EU select committee has heard evidence from a senior lawyer
2:11:18 > 2:11:21that the body of retained law will contain a number of instruments
2:11:21 > 2:11:25which make explicit reference to the charter. If the charter is not part
2:11:25 > 2:11:31of retained EU law Howard the courts supposed to interpret what the body
2:11:31 > 2:11:36of retained law bug refers to the charter, without the charter there?
2:11:36 > 2:11:41I thank the honourable lady, it's a perfectly spectacle and legitimate
2:11:41 > 2:11:45point and I want to address it in the context of amendments eight and
2:11:45 > 2:11:4946, tabled in the name of my right honourable friend, the Member for
2:11:49 > 2:11:53Beaconsfield and 46, the Leader of the Opposition. They both in
2:11:53 > 2:11:56different ways seek to retain the charter of fundamental rights in
2:11:56 > 2:12:02domestic law after exit by removing subsections four won five of clause
2:12:02 > 2:12:06five. I understand and appreciate the sentiments that lay behind these
2:12:06 > 2:12:09amendments, honourable members are understandably concerned that as we
2:12:09 > 2:12:14leave the EU we do not see any diminishing or reduction of the
2:12:14 > 2:12:16substantive rights we all enjoy, the government is unequivocally
2:12:16 > 2:12:20committed to that objective and I remind the House this country's
2:12:20 > 2:12:25record of pioneering defending and protecting human rights standards
2:12:25 > 2:12:29since well before the EU existed and our ability as a nation to withstand
2:12:29 > 2:12:33some of the darker moments of European history that have touched
2:12:33 > 2:12:39other less fortunate nations. Today, Dame Rosie... I will give way.He
2:12:39 > 2:12:43reassures us that without the charter of fundamental rights this
2:12:43 > 2:12:52House of Commons can be relied upon. That was very much the argument, the
2:12:52 > 2:12:55Lisburn treaty, ratified, wasn't clear if we were adding anything. It
2:12:55 > 2:13:01has added quite a lot in fields like privacy which this House had never
2:13:01 > 2:13:08done anything about, the law of brothers who. Moving out into data
2:13:08 > 2:13:12detection and the lobby is brought to bear on this House, looking at
2:13:12 > 2:13:14privacy, and sections of the media industry and so on are very
2:13:14 > 2:13:21considerable. So what is the point, why are we getting rid of the
2:13:21 > 2:13:26Convention, which has done no harm, it actually has run ahead of this
2:13:26 > 2:13:32House of Commons at various stages and what is gained by not leaving
2:13:32 > 2:13:36that further opportunity open for the future?I thank my right
2:13:36 > 2:13:39honourable friend and I want to come on to both of these substantive
2:13:39 > 2:13:43generic points but touch on the data protection issues he raised but can
2:13:43 > 2:13:48I just say at the outset, we reaffirm and renew our commitment to
2:13:48 > 2:13:52human rights law, it is reflected to UK national law including most
2:13:52 > 2:13:56recently the human rights act and a range of domestic legislation that
2:13:56 > 2:14:00implements are specific obligations to the United Haitians and other
2:14:00 > 2:14:04international treaties from the Convention against torture to the
2:14:04 > 2:14:07Convention on the Rights of a Child. Of course the principal
2:14:07 > 2:14:11international treaty, most relevant to the UK human rights laws is the
2:14:11 > 2:14:14European human commission on human rights. Let me make crystal clear
2:14:14 > 2:14:19government's commitment to respecting and remaining part of the
2:14:19 > 2:14:23charter. There will be no weakening of human rights protections when we
2:14:23 > 2:14:27leave the EU, in fact it's an opportunity to reinforce... I will
2:14:27 > 2:14:31just make some progress. We reinforce and build on our proud
2:14:31 > 2:14:36tradition of liberty and protection of rights. We are already in the
2:14:36 > 2:14:40process of paving the way to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on
2:14:40 > 2:14:46preventing and combating violence against women. We are leaving the EU
2:14:46 > 2:14:49but our commitment to pan European standards and human rights in this
2:14:49 > 2:14:53area remains undimmed. Furthermore as my right honourable friend is
2:14:53 > 2:14:57where we will be bringing forward an amendment before report stage which
2:14:57 > 2:15:03will explicitly with the equalities act, issues that some honourable
2:15:03 > 2:15:05members have raised, requiring ministers to make a statement before
2:15:05 > 2:15:10the House and the consistency of any exit related legislation with the
2:15:10 > 2:15:16equalities act. In relation to the charter itself, it's not the
2:15:16 > 2:15:20original source of the rights contained within it, it was only
2:15:20 > 2:15:25intended to catalogue rights which actually existed in EU law. Indeed,
2:15:25 > 2:15:29my right honourable friend, the Member for Rushcliffe intervened on
2:15:29 > 2:15:36me because he rather wisely noted as recently that protocol 30 governing
2:15:36 > 2:15:41the application of the charter to quote his words, directly, sets out
2:15:41 > 2:15:45the boundaries around the charter by confirming that it neither creates
2:15:45 > 2:15:50more extensively right to use the deserves outside those that had
2:15:50 > 2:15:54existed previously and it emphasises devastator required to comply only
2:15:54 > 2:16:00when giving effect to EU law.". These roads codified by the charter
2:16:00 > 2:16:04came from a wide variety of sources including the treaty's EU
2:16:04 > 2:16:16legislation and case law. -- these rights codified by the charter. The
2:16:16 > 2:16:19charter is a reflection, not the source, will be converted into
2:16:19 > 2:16:23domestic law by this bill, not necessarily to retain the charter in
2:16:23 > 2:16:28order to retain substantive rights. With this in mind, Dame Rosie, it is
2:16:28 > 2:16:33right and I think in dealing with the issue that the honourable member
2:16:33 > 2:16:36made at the outset, it is right for me to reaffirm the government's
2:16:36 > 2:16:41commitment that I think the Secretary of State exiting the EU
2:16:41 > 2:16:44made to the select committee, publishing detailed memorandum
2:16:44 > 2:16:48setting out how each article of the charter will be reflected in UK law
2:16:48 > 2:16:52after we leave and I can confirm we will publish that by the 5th of
2:16:52 > 2:16:57December and I hope that reassures the honourable member for Nottingham
2:16:57 > 2:16:59East and Sheffield Central because both raised that particular point.
2:16:59 > 2:17:03And I would say to my right honourable friend, the right
2:17:03 > 2:17:06honourable member for Beaconsfield by ambling to continue the dialogue
2:17:06 > 2:17:12with him on these important matters. There will be, I will give way...
2:17:39 > 2:17:44I will be very happy to sit down with The right honourable gentleman
2:17:44 > 2:17:49and any other honourable members and discuss the issue again. I give way
2:17:49 > 2:17:53to the honourable lady, she was first.I would like to thank the
2:17:53 > 2:17:58Minister for giving way. It's been a long and complex legal argument but
2:17:58 > 2:18:04to summarise, the issue of data protection is vital to many of my
2:18:04 > 2:18:10constituents, especially young people but also vital to our
2:18:10 > 2:18:12technical sector and financial services sector. Can you assure me
2:18:12 > 2:18:18that will be no risk of a legal challenge for data protection
2:18:18 > 2:18:24because of the way this is brought into British law?I thank the
2:18:24 > 2:18:29honourable lady, I know she's an expert in these matters. I'm going
2:18:29 > 2:18:32to come on and address data protection directly, she will
2:18:32 > 2:18:37forgive me. I will take that in due course. The other argument that has
2:18:37 > 2:18:43been made about the charter is that if the charter doesn't do anything
2:18:43 > 2:18:48wrong, what is the harm in keeping above my right honourable friend
2:18:48 > 2:18:51pointed out the charter only applies to member states when they are
2:18:51 > 2:18:55acting within the scope of EU law, indeed the charter is a specific
2:18:55 > 2:19:02device attended to codify EU institutions within the framework of
2:19:02 > 2:19:07EU law. It would be curious and not perverse outcome to incorporate
2:19:07 > 2:19:10implement that instrument into UK law at the very moment we cease to
2:19:10 > 2:19:14have the obligation as a member of the EU. I will make a slight bit of
2:19:14 > 2:19:26progress.Seeking to simply some plant the charter as it stands,
2:19:26 > 2:19:33dislocated from membership, would not be appropriate and would
2:19:33 > 2:19:41introduce needless complexity.Let me be clear about what the bill
2:19:41 > 2:19:51does. It takes a snapshot.It is true as proposed as a statement of
2:19:51 > 2:20:03European values, ideal has developed as we heard. If it has done no harm,
2:20:03 > 2:20:09why is the government going to such lengths to get rid of it as the one
2:20:09 > 2:20:13specific change in this bill? Presumably because it has got the
2:20:13 > 2:20:19word European and the word right in it. This was intended as a Daily
2:20:19 > 2:20:25Telegraph gesture for the hard right wing of my party.I would say that
2:20:25 > 2:20:33was not the spirit we conducted proceedings so far. I would be happy
2:20:33 > 2:20:39to take another intervention shortly. Let me be clear about what
2:20:39 > 2:20:50the bill does. It takes a snapshot of the substantive EU law, it
2:20:50 > 2:20:57converts them into a law where they sit alongside the Human Rights Act
2:20:57 > 2:21:03and other UK legislation. This is a crucial point to make as the Right
2:21:03 > 2:21:10Honourable member spotted. Every country that is a member of the EU
2:21:10 > 2:21:15is a signatory of the Convention of human rights. Everyone is
2:21:15 > 2:21:24incorporated. In view of that, what is the purpose? In the same debate
2:21:24 > 2:21:33my friend made the point far better than I can, that the risk would put
2:21:33 > 2:21:39it in conflict with human rights law. This is the point I want to
2:21:39 > 2:21:47make. If we incorporate the charter we would be duplicating human rights
2:21:47 > 2:21:56standards in the UK, opening up white scope front certainty -- for
2:21:56 > 2:22:04uncertainty.I don't understand the point the Minister is making, it is
2:22:04 > 2:22:12already part of UK law because we are a member of the European Union.
2:22:12 > 2:22:17As a member of the European Union and as we leave it will make no
2:22:17 > 2:22:21sense to retain the institutional framework of membership but what we
2:22:21 > 2:22:28will do is retained, in the way that I described, the substantive rights.
2:22:28 > 2:22:34If when we publish it, honourable members in the side or on this side
2:22:34 > 2:22:45of the highest think there is a gaping gap, I give way.With the
2:22:45 > 2:22:48Minister confirm that the evolution of our rights shows that the best
2:22:48 > 2:22:51way they defended is the democratic instincts of the British people and
2:22:51 > 2:23:12they trust this Parliament. What is the threat to these rights?The
2:23:12 > 2:23:17theory is a dominant government would trample on rights and rattle
2:23:17 > 2:23:26legislation through the House of Commons. We saw most of that off.
2:23:26 > 2:23:34I'm going to make a little bit of progress.He said one of the
2:23:34 > 2:23:37arguments he was advancing for not incorporating the charter is it
2:23:37 > 2:23:42might come into conflict with our own human rights law. Even the point
2:23:42 > 2:23:45that the honourable member has made, pointing out that it has been part
2:23:45 > 2:23:50of our law for some time, can he give us one single example of where
2:23:50 > 2:23:59that has happened?If the honourable gentleman looked at the case on
2:23:59 > 2:24:08prisoner voting, it is clear how it mixes together. They are not
2:24:08 > 2:24:13entirely consistent or compatible and indeed, my right honourable
2:24:13 > 2:24:21friend when giving evidence, I believe, in defending it, referred
2:24:21 > 2:24:26to the predatory habits of the European Court of Justice in
2:24:26 > 2:24:30Luxembourg. Even on the side of those that have been the most
2:24:30 > 2:24:33enthusiastic defenders of human rights and on the remain side of the
2:24:33 > 2:24:42argument, there is a recognition that the clash and inconsistency,
2:24:42 > 2:24:48the point I wanted to reaffirm is given the substantive rights
2:24:48 > 2:24:52codified by the charter will be retained under UK law it does not
2:24:52 > 2:25:09make sense to incorporate the EU Charter.Will the Minister give way?
2:25:09 > 2:25:18I am very grateful. Does he accept this third category of rights
2:25:18 > 2:25:23effectively that means there are some that are not in the Human
2:25:23 > 2:25:27Rights Act that require protection, the source cannot be identified
2:25:27 > 2:25:33other than the charter of human rights and will he accept the
2:25:33 > 2:25:43suggestion that there is an act to deal with those?As I've made clear
2:25:43 > 2:25:51we are going to publish our memorandum, detailing how the art
2:25:51 > 2:25:54substantive underpinning rates is reflected. I'm very happy with the
2:25:54 > 2:26:00right honourable members who are continuing the dialogue. If there
2:26:00 > 2:26:05are any rights they believe have been missed out, in relation, it is
2:26:05 > 2:26:09probably the right moment to come onto the amendment 151 which has
2:26:09 > 2:26:19been tabled by right honourable gentleman. That is in relation to
2:26:19 > 2:26:29privacy protection. I would suggest to the honourable gentleman it is
2:26:29 > 2:26:36not necessary. The data protection Bill will set very high standards
2:26:36 > 2:26:44for personal data. We will continue to maintain the high standards of
2:26:44 > 2:26:51data protection after we leave the EU. This bill will preserve existing
2:26:51 > 2:26:57fundamental rights including data protection and underlying rights.
2:26:57 > 2:27:02Individuals in the UK will continue to be able to access well
2:27:02 > 2:27:08established domestic and international mechanisms where they
2:27:08 > 2:27:13consider their rights have been breached. That includes the right to
2:27:13 > 2:27:19seek judicial remedy against...I thank the member for giving way and
2:27:19 > 2:27:24for his words about the data protection Bill which will give
2:27:24 > 2:27:31strong data protection in the UK. However, my understanding of the
2:27:31 > 2:27:33General data protection regulation in Europe is it is based on the
2:27:33 > 2:27:37fundamental principle that people own their own data. The data
2:27:37 > 2:27:44protection Bill as we've drafted it here does not start with that
2:27:44 > 2:27:50fundamental principle. Either one or the other, we either amend that Bill
2:27:50 > 2:27:57only recognise that principle. If we want to achieve equivalence we need
2:27:57 > 2:28:05to aim for that.The honourable lady has made her point in a very careful
2:28:05 > 2:28:09way. That is something for the passage of the data protection Bill
2:28:09 > 2:28:15in due course. If she is not persuaded we will be reflecting UK
2:28:15 > 2:28:22law then I would like to reassure... I will give way.I'm grateful to him
2:28:22 > 2:28:27for addressing my amendment. Does he accept it is absolutely essential
2:28:27 > 2:28:33that we avoid a declaration from the European Commission that data
2:28:33 > 2:28:36protection arrangements in the UK are not adequate and we secure and
2:28:36 > 2:28:43advocacy determination less-2-mac does he accept that not having
2:28:43 > 2:28:50article eight is an invitation to those elsewhere to find against us
2:28:50 > 2:28:56when that crunch decision comes. He's absolutely right that we need
2:28:56 > 2:29:01to be careful to navigate post Brexit in a way that minimises
2:29:01 > 2:29:09litigation. That is not good for sustaining a healthy relationship.
2:29:09 > 2:29:14We do have article eight which is incorporated via the Human Rights
2:29:14 > 2:29:19Act. If he feels there are any elements of that not properly
2:29:19 > 2:29:28transposed into UK law, it will be the data protection Bill the wider
2:29:28 > 2:29:33point is the removal of the charter will not affect... I'm going to make
2:29:33 > 2:29:39some progress. I've been speaking for over half an hour and ministers
2:29:39 > 2:29:44want to speak again to address schedule one. The substantial rights
2:29:44 > 2:29:47then individuals already benefit from will be retained as a matter
2:29:47 > 2:29:52under this bill. As I've already pointed out, the charter is not the
2:29:52 > 2:29:56source of rights contained within it but was intended to catalogue those
2:29:56 > 2:30:02which existed in EU law at that moment in time. Finally I want to
2:30:02 > 2:30:14come on and address the late clauses tabled. New clause 78 and 79. On the
2:30:14 > 2:30:18impact our departure might have on equalities legislation, I would take
2:30:18 > 2:30:22this opportunity to reaffirm the commitment I made on day one of the
2:30:22 > 2:30:30committee. We discussed this issue at some length. I understand the
2:30:30 > 2:30:34intention behind this amendment. There will be no reduction in
2:30:34 > 2:30:42substantive equalities rights. The amendment has some practical
2:30:42 > 2:30:47difficulties, his efforts to copy and paste the procedural model and
2:30:47 > 2:30:54fitness for equalities purposes. The THR is not the same, there is not an
2:30:54 > 2:31:02equivalent. I'm more than happy to reaffirm the commitment, that the
2:31:02 > 2:31:05government will bring forward an amendment which will require
2:31:05 > 2:31:10ministers to make a statement before this house in the presentation of
2:31:10 > 2:31:27any Brexit related primary or secondary legislation. New clause 79
2:31:27 > 2:31:31is entirely unnecessary given the wider snapshot this bill will take
2:31:31 > 2:31:39at the point of exit. I hope I've tackled... I give way.We are moving
2:31:39 > 2:31:43on to schedule one or as somebody else going to deal with it? At what
2:31:43 > 2:31:48stage of the debates, I thought the government would wrap it all up in
2:31:48 > 2:31:56one.As I said, given the intention to address clause five in some
2:31:56 > 2:32:01detail and the underlying amendments we split this up and we will address
2:32:01 > 2:32:07schedule one and all of the concerns about the general principles in due
2:32:07 > 2:32:13course. I hope I've tackled all concerns in relation to clause five.
2:32:13 > 2:32:19I would urge honourable members not to press them to a vote. This
2:32:19 > 2:32:22government have listened and we will continue to reflect on all the
2:32:22 > 2:32:30arguments made today. The government believes the exceptions are correct
2:32:30 > 2:32:34as we carefully seek to separate our legal system from that of the EU. We
2:32:34 > 2:32:40will do it in a way that leaves more, not less, legal certainty. I
2:32:40 > 2:32:51urge honourable members to pass it on amended.Thank you. I rise to
2:32:51 > 2:32:53give my support and that of the Scottish National Party to the
2:32:53 > 2:32:59amendments designed to retain the charter of fundamental rights in
2:32:59 > 2:33:02domestic law and those designed to preserve legal remedies for
2:33:02 > 2:33:07individuals and businesses. To enforce these rights and be
2:33:07 > 2:33:12compensated when the rates are breached. It is heartening to see
2:33:12 > 2:33:18such strong cross-party support for these amendments. I had hoped the
2:33:18 > 2:33:25Conservative rebels would have the courage of their convictions to push
2:33:25 > 2:33:27these amendments to vote despite the very unpleasant pressure they have
2:33:27 > 2:33:33been subjected to, but it is a matter for them and there are other
2:33:33 > 2:33:36cross-party amendment which will, I'm sure, be pressed to a vote on
2:33:36 > 2:33:45the charter in the name of the Right Honourable member.
2:33:45 > 2:33:50In before I come on to address why the SNP supports these amendments, I
2:33:50 > 2:33:53have a crucial question for the Minister who is no longer in his
2:33:53 > 2:33:57place, I think it needs to be answered, not for my benefit of the
2:33:57 > 2:33:59benefit of the Woolhouse and indeed the country. Because this clause
2:33:59 > 2:34:05that we are at debating today revolves around the supremacy of EU
2:34:05 > 2:34:12law and whether or not at the charter will be part of domestic law
2:34:12 > 2:34:16and as somebody else has already referred to in the course of this
2:34:16 > 2:34:20debate, this morning, the prime Minster's official spokesman told a
2:34:20 > 2:34:26routine Westminster briefing and I quote, the government expects the
2:34:26 > 2:34:30European Court of Justice ruled to be unchanged during the period of
2:34:30 > 2:34:37two years following the official exit date of March 2000 19. Are at
2:34:37 > 2:34:43the Treasury bench aware of this, can they explain to us how it
2:34:43 > 2:34:47impacts on for the debate, if the Prime Minister is of the view as her
2:34:47 > 2:34:52spokesman has said that the Court of Justice's role will be unchanged
2:34:52 > 2:34:56during a two-year implementation period from exit date, then not only
2:34:56 > 2:35:00is the rather ridiculous amendment that was brought to this House by
2:35:00 > 2:35:03the government last week defining exit date rendered utterly
2:35:03 > 2:35:07meaningless much of the debate we are having this afternoon about this
2:35:07 > 2:35:13clause five and the debate we had laws that might last week about
2:35:13 > 2:35:16clause six rendered meaningless. I'm not trying to score a party
2:35:16 > 2:35:21political point here. This is a matter about legal certainty which
2:35:21 > 2:35:27is of the utmost importance to all UK citizens and to UK business and
2:35:27 > 2:35:34the universities. Now which is it? Is of what was said by the Prime
2:35:34 > 2:35:38Minister's spokesman this morning correct, is the Court of justice
2:35:38 > 2:35:41going to continue unchanged during the two-year into meditation period
2:35:41 > 2:35:47and if so, how does that impact on what we are debating today? I am
2:35:47 > 2:35:49very happy for the Minister to clarify but if he wishes to take
2:35:49 > 2:35:52advice I am sure his right honourable friend the
2:35:52 > 2:35:57Solicitor-General will clarify this vital point of what impact the
2:35:57 > 2:36:00statement will have this morning on the whole of this bill and
2:36:00 > 2:36:06particularly the close we are debating. In any event, Mr Speaker,
2:36:06 > 2:36:13sorry, Dame Rosie, if this bill, the somewhat hold the Neath the water
2:36:13 > 2:36:17bill is to survive and limp on, the Scottish National Party commits
2:36:17 > 2:36:23itself wholeheartedly to the amendments to keep Charter of
2:36:23 > 2:36:26Fundamental Rights and to keep individuals and businesses rights to
2:36:26 > 2:36:29sue and in force and make those rights meaningful cos that's what
2:36:29 > 2:36:35the individual right of enforcement is all about, making rights
2:36:35 > 2:36:39meaningful, it's trite law for anyone who studied law, but a right
2:36:39 > 2:36:44without a remedy is a pretty useless thing. The Scottish Government
2:36:44 > 2:36:47published its programme for government earlier this year and
2:36:47 > 2:36:52reiterated its commitment to international human rights norms.
2:36:52 > 2:36:56And of course Terry important to remember about human rights in terms
2:36:56 > 2:37:00of the devolved settlement are not fully reserved to this Parliament,
2:37:00 > 2:37:03what the Scottish Government chooses to do in relation to human rights
2:37:03 > 2:37:06could be very important. Particularly of Scotland is to be
2:37:06 > 2:37:11taken out of the European Union against her will. My colleagues in
2:37:11 > 2:37:14the Scottish Government have emphasised it's absolutely essential
2:37:14 > 2:37:19that existing safeguards are not undermined by Brexit. And that the
2:37:19 > 2:37:24rights everyone enjoys in these islands as EU citizens need to be
2:37:24 > 2:37:31permanently locked in to a future deal. And that's why we oppose the
2:37:31 > 2:37:34removal of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights from domestic
2:37:34 > 2:37:42law. It's why we opposed the removal of the government's previous desire
2:37:42 > 2:37:46to repeal the Human Rights Act. I was very interested in the
2:37:46 > 2:37:54Minister's reiteration as in fairness, I've been written to by
2:37:54 > 2:37:57the government several times, no intention to withdraw from the
2:37:57 > 2:37:59European Convention on Human Rights but as I already said, rights
2:37:59 > 2:38:03without remedies aren't much use and the great thing about the Human
2:38:03 > 2:38:08Rights Act, it gave UK citizens the opportunity to enforce their rights
2:38:08 > 2:38:11by raising actions in the courts have their own jurisdiction so I
2:38:11 > 2:38:14wonder if the Minister or the Solicitor-General when he gets to
2:38:14 > 2:38:19his feet later will confirm what the government's future intentions are
2:38:19 > 2:38:22in relation to the Human Rights Act? I would be very concerned the
2:38:22 > 2:38:35government are engaged in an exercise... I will give way
2:38:38 > 2:38:42stop I am very grateful to him for that. The revision and repeal of the
2:38:42 > 2:38:45Human Rights Act was on the back burner but it's now dropped, I think
2:38:45 > 2:38:51some of us on this side and indeed many memorable -- honourable members
2:38:51 > 2:38:55opposite can be grateful for the government backing down. Why don't
2:38:55 > 2:38:59we will be in the middle celebration as we face the government's chaotic
2:38:59 > 2:39:03plans on Brexit, that's what we have to discuss today. I am drawing
2:39:03 > 2:39:05attention to the fact that my colleagues in the Scottish
2:39:05 > 2:39:07Government in have recently reiterated their very firm
2:39:07 > 2:39:12commitment to the idea that international human rights norms
2:39:12 > 2:39:16should not just signed up to buy the jurisdictions in these islands but
2:39:16 > 2:39:22should also be given direct effect by giving individuals and businesses
2:39:22 > 2:39:27the opportunity to raise and realise their rights in the courts. And the
2:39:27 > 2:39:34Scottish Government has indicated it intends to implement the socio-
2:39:34 > 2:39:39economic act by the end of this year and that will place a requirement on
2:39:39 > 2:39:42key parts of the public sector including Scottish banisters to have
2:39:42 > 2:39:47due regard to reducing inequalities caused by socio- economic
2:39:47 > 2:39:51disadvantage when taking strategic decisions and that is a key approach
2:39:51 > 2:39:57of my colleagues in Edinburgh, a key component of their approach to
2:39:57 > 2:39:59tackling poverty. And the Scottish Government is also committed in its
2:39:59 > 2:40:04programme for government are looking at how it can further embed Neuman,
2:40:04 > 2:40:08social, cultural and economic rights including the UN Convention on the
2:40:08 > 2:40:13rights of the child and I referred to this, Dame Rosie, because it's an
2:40:13 > 2:40:17indication the Scottish Government's original travel on international
2:40:17 > 2:40:21human rights norms is very different than the UK Government and I reflect
2:40:21 > 2:40:25the fact that I said earlier that human rights are not reserved
2:40:25 > 2:40:29matter, so far as the repeal or amendment of the Human Rights Act is
2:40:29 > 2:40:31concerned and the Scottish Government has the power to
2:40:31 > 2:40:37legislate to protect human rights and intends to do so. And that leads
2:40:37 > 2:40:43me to comment very briefly on new clause 78 which is a new right in
2:40:43 > 2:40:47relation to equality, intended to apply across the United Kingdom and
2:40:47 > 2:40:51I think it's a very laudable intention behind that and I would
2:40:51 > 2:40:56just wish to draw attention to the fact its application in Scotland,
2:40:56 > 2:40:59Wales and Northern Ireland would require discussion with the consent
2:40:59 > 2:41:03of the devolved administrations if it was to be incorporated into the
2:41:03 > 2:41:09devolution statutes. The Scottish Government's position on human
2:41:09 > 2:41:12rights and those of the Scottish National Party also reflect the
2:41:12 > 2:41:17wishes of voters in Scotland to vote to remain in the European Union by a
2:41:17 > 2:41:21considerable margin. And who also voted considerably Barger numbers
2:41:21 > 2:41:23for parties who support international human rights norms and
2:41:23 > 2:41:30for parties which don't. And Dame Rosie it's about time this
2:41:30 > 2:41:33Parliament started to recognise that use across these islands are quite
2:41:33 > 2:41:38diverging to from the sort of Brexit that the government are proposing.
2:41:38 > 2:41:43And these cross-party amendment is keeping us in the charter and
2:41:43 > 2:41:47keeping remedies for UK citizens goes some way to doing that. But of
2:41:47 > 2:41:52course they Rosie, that is not to say there are not many people in
2:41:52 > 2:41:58England and Wales who voted to leave who also wish to see the Charter of
2:41:58 > 2:42:02Fundamental Rights preserved. And we heard a fine may say so, as usual,
2:42:02 > 2:42:06it typically eloquent speech from the right honourable and learned
2:42:06 > 2:42:09member for Beaconsfield earlier when he said the rights that have come
2:42:09 > 2:42:15into our law as the result of the membership of the EU, have done good
2:42:15 > 2:42:18across these islands, particularly for the most vulnerable people in
2:42:18 > 2:42:23our society and one would hope that is something we could agree to on a
2:42:23 > 2:42:29cross-party basis. I do feel that there is a lot of misinformation
2:42:29 > 2:42:37going around. About the charter and I feel this stems from a resistance
2:42:37 > 2:42:42to the idea that it is either desirable or necessary for
2:42:42 > 2:42:45international human rights norms to have direct effect in the United
2:42:45 > 2:42:51Kingdom. And I think we have to recognise that the logical result of
2:42:51 > 2:42:56that antipathy to giving direct effect to human international rights
2:42:56 > 2:43:04norms is to take away rights and the ability to realise from British
2:43:04 > 2:43:08citizens and businesses and that is surely not a desirable state of
2:43:08 > 2:43:14personal matter which side of the House use it on. As we've heard from
2:43:14 > 2:43:18a number of speakers is afternoon the government has tried to reassure
2:43:18 > 2:43:22us that importing EU law without also importing the charter will make
2:43:22 > 2:43:25no difference to the protection of rights in various jurisdictions in
2:43:25 > 2:43:33the UK. And in paragraphs 99, 100 of the explanatory notes of the bill
2:43:33 > 2:43:36they say it's a necessary to include the charter as part of retained log
2:43:36 > 2:43:39the cause it merely codified is rights and principles already
2:43:39 > 2:43:43inherent in EU law and that's what the Minister told us when he was at
2:43:43 > 2:43:48the dispatch box but as others have said, that begs the question of why
2:43:48 > 2:43:52bother, not to incorporate the charter if it's a simple
2:43:52 > 2:43:56codification, as I pointed out on the earlier intervention, we heard
2:43:56 > 2:44:00evidence in the select committee from a senior legal academic that
2:44:00 > 2:44:07within retained EU law there will be legislation which refers to the
2:44:07 > 2:44:10charter and if the charter is not there then it's going to be a lack
2:44:10 > 2:44:14of legal certainty. The Minister would no doubt say to that, the
2:44:14 > 2:44:18general principles will still be there but charter existed as a
2:44:18 > 2:44:20codification of the general principles to make them more readily
2:44:20 > 2:44:26accessible. I'm very interested to see the list the Minister is going
2:44:26 > 2:44:30to produce on the 5th of December but he'll be making his life a lot
2:44:30 > 2:44:33more easy and I know he's got a lot on his plate as his colleagues have
2:44:33 > 2:44:36at the moment if he incorporated the charter rather than running around
2:44:36 > 2:44:40with bits of paper the stink of the general principles are when they are
2:44:40 > 2:44:44all listed in the charter anyway. Surely that's a logical and
2:44:44 > 2:44:50practical thing to do unless there is some, to use someone else's
2:44:50 > 2:44:53phrase, devilish plots going on or by removing the Charter of
2:44:53 > 2:44:55Fundamental Rights means rights will be removed and there is some
2:44:55 > 2:45:01evidence basis for thinking at least some members on the benches opposite
2:45:01 > 2:45:04think that it's a good thing not to incorporate the Charter of
2:45:04 > 2:45:07Fundamental Rights because it has rights in at that they don't like
2:45:07 > 2:45:11and I'm sorry to single out one member opposite what I did read the
2:45:11 > 2:45:16honourable and learned member for there's article in the Sun newspaper
2:45:16 > 2:45:22and got my eyes. And I thought every newspaper should be given a chance
2:45:22 > 2:45:28from time to time so I had a little look at it and I saw that she writes
2:45:28 > 2:45:32and I know like myself she is a lawyer, she writes this week
2:45:32 > 2:45:36Parliament will be asked to vote on whether to incorporate the EU's
2:45:36 > 2:45:40Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law. If Labour acting with others
2:45:40 > 2:45:43managed to force this through their will be legal chaos, not only will
2:45:43 > 2:45:49it hand new and long lasting powers to UK courts, but it's also crept
2:45:49 > 2:45:53into many areas of UK law from a silent to even national set do. We
2:45:53 > 2:45:57have it in the words of at one honourable and learned member
2:45:57 > 2:46:00opposite, there are things in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which
2:46:00 > 2:46:04some on the benches opposite not wish to see incorporated into our
2:46:04 > 2:46:08law. Of course, I will take an intervention.I'm flattered she's
2:46:08 > 2:46:16courting me in the chamber. And I mean, doesn't she find it odd that
2:46:16 > 2:46:20the effect of what she is proposing really will be legal chaos and
2:46:20 > 2:46:25uncertainty, we will have interacting rights regimes, we will
2:46:25 > 2:46:29have the convention through the Human Rights Act, this is precisely
2:46:29 > 2:46:34at a time when this will is designed to provide legal certainty for
2:46:34 > 2:46:40businesses, individuals and other governments.With respect, we have
2:46:40 > 2:46:43all that at present, as my friend behind me saying it is the status
2:46:43 > 2:46:52quo, it is the... Part of domestic law and I will in a minute, I don't
2:46:52 > 2:46:57see any legal chaos, I see a lot of political chaos but I don't see
2:46:57 > 2:47:02legal chaos in our courts.I thank the honourable member forgiving way.
2:47:02 > 2:47:06Does she agree with me that there is some form of misunderstanding,
2:47:06 > 2:47:10actually it's the gaps we are addressing, it's not creating
2:47:10 > 2:47:14uncertainty, what we are addressing is the situation as is proposed
2:47:14 > 2:47:18through the bill will create some gaps and this is what we are
2:47:18 > 2:47:22addressing is the main problem?I think the honourable lady makes the
2:47:22 > 2:47:26point very eloquently, some on the benches opposite say if the charter
2:47:26 > 2:47:29is incorporated into domestic law that will cause uncertainty and
2:47:29 > 2:47:34chaos. But the point that we are seeking to make is that if you don't
2:47:34 > 2:47:37incorporate it come off while you are incorporating everything else, a
2:47:37 > 2:47:41snapshot of everything else, that is what will cause uncertainty, I will
2:47:41 > 2:47:45not go so far as to say chaos, there will be so much chaos around after
2:47:45 > 2:47:51Brexit, it will be difficult to establish the differences but there
2:47:51 > 2:47:54will be legal uncertainty and the Minister himself said one of the
2:47:54 > 2:47:58guiding purposes in this legislation was to avoid legal uncertainty. I
2:47:58 > 2:48:03will give way.
2:48:03 > 2:48:07I'm very grateful for her giving way. Clearly our independent
2:48:07 > 2:48:11judiciary are quite capable of looking at the charter and balancing
2:48:11 > 2:48:18and indeed the humans rights act and other UK domestic legislation and
2:48:18 > 2:48:22balancing the rights contained in those various pieces of legislation
2:48:22 > 2:48:29and have done so successfully for many, many years.That is their job
2:48:29 > 2:48:32and particularly judges at the higher levels such as the Supreme
2:48:32 > 2:48:38Court and the higher justice of in Scotland are used to grappling with
2:48:38 > 2:48:42the complex interplay of international treaties and also
2:48:42 > 2:48:47particularly international human rights protections. Now, I mentioned
2:48:47 > 2:48:54earlier evidence that had been heard by the select committee and we heard
2:48:54 > 2:48:58from a variety of witnesses about the effect of not incorporating the
2:48:58 > 2:49:01charter. I have to be honest and say some of them were happy for the
2:49:01 > 2:49:05charter not to be incorporated but even some of those who were happy
2:49:05 > 2:49:10for the charter to go said that something would be lost. By its
2:49:10 > 2:49:15going. And honourable members on both sides of the House this
2:49:15 > 2:49:19afternoon have given a number of examples of what it would be lost
2:49:19 > 2:49:23and I want to add to that briefly, I won't take up too much time because
2:49:23 > 2:49:33I know a lot of people want to speak...Just before she comes to
2:49:33 > 2:49:36her list, may I just add one more item to her list and that is of
2:49:36 > 2:49:41course that the government has made great play about its commitment to
2:49:41 > 2:49:46the Good Friday Agreement. It will uphold all of its agreements. One of
2:49:46 > 2:49:52the obligations under that agreement is of course respect for human
2:49:52 > 2:49:56rights. It's quite a large chapter in the agreement. Part of that is
2:49:56 > 2:50:00that there should be at the very least an equivalence between human
2:50:00 > 2:50:02rights protections in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of
2:50:02 > 2:50:07Ireland. So it is obvious when the UK leads the European Union and
2:50:07 > 2:50:11Northern Ireland would not have the protections afforded by the charter
2:50:11 > 2:50:14of rights that we are discussing this afternoon but they Republic of
2:50:14 > 2:50:19Ireland will have that protection. So I hope that the honourable lady
2:50:19 > 2:50:23will actually pressed the government to fill that gap in Northern
2:50:23 > 2:50:28Ireland's protection.I will. And the honourable lady has, in her
2:50:28 > 2:50:32usual clear and incisive way, anticipated something I'm going to
2:50:32 > 2:50:36come to but perhaps I will come to it before my list. As the honourable
2:50:36 > 2:50:41lady says, the protection of fundamental rights is absolutely
2:50:41 > 2:50:45central to Good Friday Agreement and receives its own section in the
2:50:45 > 2:50:50agreement and as she has said, the fact that this bill is taking out
2:50:50 > 2:50:56the charter from retained law raises concerns this respect. And that the
2:50:56 > 2:51:00Good Friday Agreement requires, in particular, at least an equivalent
2:51:00 > 2:51:03level of protection of human rights in Ireland and Northern Ireland.
2:51:03 > 2:51:09Now, if the charter is gone from domestic law, there will not be an
2:51:09 > 2:51:13equivalent protection of rights in Ireland and Northern Ireland.
2:51:13 > 2:51:18Because once the UK withdraws from the EU, Northern Ireland will no
2:51:18 > 2:51:22longer benefit from the charter's protection. This could pose
2:51:22 > 2:51:32significant problems in relation to the Good Friday Agreement.Lets not
2:51:32 > 2:51:37forget that the Good Friday Agreement was written in 1998. The
2:51:37 > 2:51:42charter of fundamental rights appeared in 2007. It is the
2:51:42 > 2:51:45convention, the European Convention on human rights that is the key
2:51:45 > 2:51:51governing principle here, not the charter.I beg to differ. He is
2:51:51 > 2:51:57right about the dates but of course as we know the charter is merely a
2:51:57 > 2:52:00codification of general rights and principles. One of our main concern
2:52:00 > 2:52:03is about not incorporating the charter is not the standing the
2:52:03 > 2:52:08Minister's list on the 5th of December, and list prepared by
2:52:08 > 2:52:12Minister, with all due respect, does not have the same weight in the
2:52:12 > 2:52:18court of law as a charter signed up to by several countries. It is not
2:52:18 > 2:52:22just my view and the honourable lady's view that there is an issue
2:52:22 > 2:52:28with the Good Friday Agreement here. The report for the rule of law has
2:52:28 > 2:52:31raised the question of whether non-retention of the charter will
2:52:31 > 2:52:38impact on Northern Ireland and as paraphrased and I look forward to
2:52:38 > 2:52:41the Solicitor General and stream them in more general than merely to
2:52:41 > 2:52:46say there is not a problem. This is the whole problem, if I say so, with
2:52:46 > 2:52:50the British government's approach to the unique situation that Northern
2:52:50 > 2:52:55Ireland vies itself in as a result of Brexit. It's this constant is not
2:52:55 > 2:53:01a problem, it'll be fine. This is what is causing us problems in the
2:53:01 > 2:53:05negotiation with the EU 27 because mere platitudes and assurances are
2:53:05 > 2:53:09not enough. We need some detail as to why they are moving the charter
2:53:09 > 2:53:15of fundamental rights from domestic law and it will not pose problems
2:53:15 > 2:53:18for the Good Friday Agreement. But as I'm sure as we have him here we
2:53:18 > 2:53:25will hear that detail.I wonder if she recalls the judgment in 2013,
2:53:25 > 2:53:34which is when the Mostyn judgment in 2013, which is when a very senior
2:53:34 > 2:53:37member of the judiciary expresses some astonishment and surprise that
2:53:37 > 2:53:42there was direct applicability of the charter in UK domestic law given
2:53:42 > 2:53:46that the protocol had been attached to the charter when we originally
2:53:46 > 2:53:51signed up to it. Given the rather temporary nature of the charter of
2:53:51 > 2:53:56rights, how can it be so fundamental to the Good Friday Agreement? He
2:53:56 > 2:54:00didn't exist in law in this country or wasn't recognised by the
2:54:00 > 2:54:04judiciary even after it had been brought into force in the treaties.
2:54:04 > 2:54:08If I may say so, I think that is to misunderstand. I am not responsible
2:54:08 > 2:54:12for the false assurances that were given about the opt out at the time
2:54:12 > 2:54:16this country signed up to the charter. They didn't come from the
2:54:16 > 2:54:20Scottish pack national party. I think it is fair to say they've been
2:54:20 > 2:54:23disowned by the Labour Party now but again if we look to the reality of
2:54:23 > 2:54:30what they charter has meant in our law, it has meant enhanced, I would
2:54:30 > 2:54:34use direct effect rather than direct applicability because people are
2:54:34 > 2:54:38able to take action and refer to those rights in the course of
2:54:38 > 2:54:45action. As we saw in a Supreme Court case last summer. A man was able to
2:54:45 > 2:54:50realise equal pension rights for his husband despite a loophole in UK law
2:54:50 > 2:54:52about the equalisation of pension rights for gay couples because the
2:54:52 > 2:54:56charter filled that loophole. But I was going to give a brief list of
2:54:56 > 2:55:00some of the rights. We have heard a lot about data protection are no
2:55:00 > 2:55:04others will want to address but it is worth remembering that the right
2:55:04 > 2:55:10to be forgotten, which I believe is to some interest to some in this
2:55:10 > 2:55:15House, it is the right to be forgotten in Google and other search
2:55:15 > 2:55:18engines. But there is more to it than just that and I think if
2:55:18 > 2:55:24perhaps we look at the words of others rather than just my direct
2:55:24 > 2:55:28say so. When this select committee heard evidence about this matter is,
2:55:28 > 2:55:34we heard evidence from the director of policy at which she told is that
2:55:34 > 2:55:37the charter of fundamental rights content really important principles
2:55:37 > 2:55:41for consumers and that she would wish to highlight in particular the
2:55:41 > 2:55:45right to a high level of human health protection in article 35 and
2:55:45 > 2:55:49a right to a high level of consumer protection. Angelique referred to
2:55:49 > 2:55:59the case in May last year of the large tobacco companies bringing a
2:55:59 > 2:56:01case challenging the standardised packaging of tobacco regulations
2:56:01 > 2:56:08which lead to the packages being blank on the cover. The High Court
2:56:08 > 2:56:14dismissed the case. That is a pretty meaningful right for public health
2:56:14 > 2:56:20in these islands. And one of the lawyers who gave evidence to the
2:56:20 > 2:56:26committee, a senior lecturer at York Law School said that she had done an
2:56:26 > 2:56:30approximate count of the number of times the charter was referred to in
2:56:30 > 2:56:39case law and there were bottled 17 Northern Ireland, 14 in Scotland and
2:56:39 > 2:56:4698 in the European Court of Human Rights and 832 EU judgments, 515 of
2:56:46 > 2:56:52which were from the Court of Justice. So her point was that some
2:56:52 > 2:56:55of the water of cases that were required to be read differently at
2:56:55 > 2:56:59the charter is no longer in UK law and she said it is not clear they
2:56:59 > 2:57:05are to be read differently.I thank the honourable member forgiving way
2:57:05 > 2:57:10and indeed she and I sit on the same committee and I just wanted to
2:57:10 > 2:57:14highlight and get her view on one point, where there was little
2:57:14 > 2:57:17evidence given by Doctor O'Brien is talking about the School of thought
2:57:17 > 2:57:22that suggested it may not make that much different to exclude the
2:57:22 > 2:57:26charter is actually misleading because of the extent to which the
2:57:26 > 2:57:31charter is embedded in a lot of what we would consider to be retained EU
2:57:31 > 2:57:36law. And it would be extremely complicated to disentangle that.I
2:57:36 > 2:57:40think anyone who is interested in the detail of why taking the charter
2:57:40 > 2:57:44out of domestic law does actually take away rights would be well
2:57:44 > 2:57:51advised to read Doctor O'Brien's evidence.The charter is cited into
2:57:51 > 2:57:55249 cases in England does not mean it has the slightest radical effect
2:57:55 > 2:57:59on the outcome of the judgment and she knows that quite well.I do know
2:57:59 > 2:58:02that because like the honourable learned gentleman I suspect we are
2:58:02 > 2:58:07both sat through cases where caseworkers been cited that is hard
2:58:07 > 2:58:13to see its relevance. But Doctor O'Brien made her point advisedly
2:58:13 > 2:58:16having taken care to prepare for the committee. It is not an isolated
2:58:16 > 2:58:22point and as the Honourable Lady has said there was quite a bit more to
2:58:22 > 2:58:27her evidence. She touched in some detail on data retention issues,
2:58:27 > 2:58:33which I will leave to others, as the honourable general for East Ham, my
2:58:33 > 2:58:37apology, East Ham had a very interesting exchange with Doctor
2:58:37 > 2:58:41O'Brien about these data protection issues and will no doubt be
2:58:41 > 2:58:48addressed and later as he has an amendment about them.When one the
2:58:48 > 2:58:53charter in the High Court is what does it add? And the most familiar
2:58:53 > 2:58:57response of council is nothing. And the most familiar course of the
2:58:57 > 2:59:06judge thereafter is to ignore it completely. In 95 to 98% of cases.
2:59:06 > 2:59:10He's no doubt commenting on English jurisdiction. I can't comment on
2:59:10 > 2:59:15that because I haven't appeared here except in the Supreme Court. In
2:59:15 > 2:59:21Scotland sometimes its relevance sometimes it isn't. That... But to
2:59:21 > 2:59:25counter the honourable gentleman's point, there are hard examples of
2:59:25 > 2:59:30where the charter has made a huge difference. One was mentioned
2:59:30 > 2:59:34earlier this afternoon. I think by the honourable and learned gentleman
2:59:34 > 2:59:45the member for Beaconsfield. In relation to the case concerning the
2:59:45 > 2:59:54rights of hanging widely in an embassy in London. The case is so a
2:59:54 > 3:00:00case against the Republic of Saddam. She was complaining against unlawful
3:00:00 > 3:00:03dismissal and she would have been denied a remedy had it not been for
3:00:03 > 3:00:09the charter. So there is a very hard example. Forget Doctor O'Brien's
3:00:09 > 3:00:12evidence about the number of references if one wants to and look
3:00:12 > 3:00:15hard examples of where the charter has made a difference. We have also
3:00:15 > 3:00:20heard about the tobacco legislation. There are many examples in data
3:00:20 > 3:00:28protection, perhaps the most celebrated one being the litigation
3:00:28 > 3:00:35in the field of data protection.I hope the honourable and learn the
3:00:35 > 3:00:39true lady could help me with a point of confusion and currently
3:00:39 > 3:00:42struggling with. And I hope that impressed myself in front of more
3:00:42 > 3:00:46than the members of this House but is it not right to say that
3:00:46 > 3:00:50application of charter rights in the European Courts of Justice to create
3:00:50 > 3:00:55case that under the EU withdrawal bill we are saying has UK Supreme
3:00:55 > 3:01:00Court level status and so in effect are we not copying across ECJ case
3:01:00 > 3:01:05law on the charter into UK, more while not copying across the charter
3:01:05 > 3:01:09of fundamental rights? Is that nonsensical?The honourable
3:01:09 > 3:01:13gentleman is absolutely right. This is a point made by Doctor O'Brien in
3:01:13 > 3:01:17our evidence. If in the snapshot of retained EU law, which is to be
3:01:17 > 3:01:23taken at exit day, we are taking across all sorts of aspects of EU
3:01:23 > 3:01:28law that refer to the charter then it is nonsensical not to take the
3:01:28 > 3:01:32charter across as well. Particularly if the government are insistent on
3:01:32 > 3:01:38sticking to what they say in the explanatory notes that the charter
3:01:38 > 3:01:41doesn't really add anything that's not already in the general
3:01:41 > 3:01:45principles. What it does add is clarity and what I would like to say
3:01:45 > 3:01:50in conclusion is that the process of leaving the European Union is
3:01:50 > 3:01:54already extremely complex and unpredictable and the removal of the
3:01:54 > 3:01:59charter simply risks creating an additional level of legal
3:01:59 > 3:02:03uncertainty and legal instability. And so, therefore, why do it? Why
3:02:03 > 3:02:08not reconsider? The government has bigger issues on its place,
3:02:08 > 3:02:11particularly the issue I highlighted at the beginning of my contribution
3:02:11 > 3:02:15today, which arises from the Prime Minister's spokesperson admission
3:02:15 > 3:02:18this morning that we're going to be in the European Court of Justice for
3:02:18 > 3:02:23another two years after exit day, which as I said renders a lot of
3:02:23 > 3:02:26what we're saying irrelevant at least in the short-term. But the
3:02:26 > 3:02:31government does have bigger fish to fry. Why do this? Why remove the
3:02:31 > 3:02:38charter? Why take away from ordinary British citizens and business people
3:02:38 > 3:02:42their right to realise damages if their rights have been breached? Why
3:02:42 > 3:02:47do that unless it is part of a wider agenda, an agenda bigger than
3:02:47 > 3:02:52Brexit, which is about the rolling back of the United Kingdom from its
3:02:52 > 3:02:55adherence to international human rights norms. The government needs
3:02:55 > 3:03:00to think very carefully about the message it is sending out. Just last
3:03:00 > 3:03:04night, it was reported that a distinguished British jurist who had
3:03:04 > 3:03:08been put up as a judge at the International Court of Justice has
3:03:08 > 3:03:13had to withdraw from the race because other countries in the UN
3:03:13 > 3:03:18arcana on someone from another country. Now, even as a Scottish
3:03:18 > 3:03:22nationalist, I concede that that is a setback for the United Kingdom's
3:03:22 > 3:03:26world standing. And for as long as Scotland remains part of United
3:03:26 > 3:03:29Kingdom, I would like the United Kingdom to be an outward looking
3:03:29 > 3:03:33country and indeed even after Scotland leaves the EU, I would like
3:03:33 > 3:03:39the rest of UK to be an outward looking country. This sort of thing
3:03:39 > 3:03:46does not inspire confidence. In the British,... So I very much invite
3:03:46 > 3:03:51the government to think again and I look forward to hearing from them
3:03:51 > 3:03:54later in relation to a number of questions I've raised this
3:03:54 > 3:03:59afternoon, most importantly about this statement by the Brahmins are's
3:03:59 > 3:04:01spokesperson this morning but the situation from Northern Ireland as
3:04:01 > 3:04:07well.
3:04:07 > 3:04:13Liam Cash. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I've already suggested, old Tony
3:04:13 > 3:04:15Blair and Lord Goldsmith strongly resisted the charter being made part
3:04:15 > 3:04:19of UK law as my European Scrutiny Committee made clear in its last
3:04:19 > 3:04:24report in its report of April 20 14th which anyone can read. It is
3:04:24 > 3:04:29impossible to understand why the Labour Party has now taken the
3:04:29 > 3:04:36position that it has to retain the charter although as Alice said
3:04:36 > 3:04:41analysis Wonderland or Sandhu said to her, I always believe in six
3:04:41 > 3:04:44impossible things before breakfast. The Conservative Party itself
3:04:44 > 3:04:49categorically ruled out charter in the manifesto and we voted against
3:04:49 > 3:04:54the Lisbon Treaty, this included the charter which the European Court
3:04:54 > 3:05:01since then did apply to us because it includes the application of EU
3:05:01 > 3:05:07law as applied by the European law, including assertions of
3:05:07 > 3:05:10Constitutional supremacy over our Act of Parliament and the curious
3:05:10 > 3:05:16power to do is apply these acts, for example as in my exchange with the
3:05:16 > 3:05:19right honourable and learned member from Beaconsfield, the striking down
3:05:19 > 3:05:26by the House of Lords of the merchant shipping act 1988 in the
3:05:26 > 3:05:29factor ten case. For all these reasons it would be unconscionable
3:05:29 > 3:05:34for us in this bill to include the charter. With these amendments and I
3:05:34 > 3:05:40say this with great respect to those backing them, the EU Court
3:05:40 > 3:05:45interpretation and the case law which is so greatly liable to the EU
3:05:45 > 3:05:51jurist Prudential elasticity and by that of the European Court of
3:05:51 > 3:05:56Justice itself would in fact under the arrangements of the amendments
3:05:56 > 3:05:59would enable the UK Supreme Court to do supply acts of parliament. That
3:05:59 > 3:06:06is absolutely fundamental and also completely under democratic it's
3:06:06 > 3:06:11already happened under the present aegis with the merchant shipping act
3:06:11 > 3:06:141988 but it would happen more and more frequently and we would simply
3:06:14 > 3:06:17have to accept that because it's not a question of opinion, it's a
3:06:17 > 3:06:26question of law and fact. Yes, of course.It is that the European
3:06:26 > 3:06:31Court of Justice within the European Union to continue to interpret what
3:06:31 > 3:06:37the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights actually means. So is the charter
3:06:37 > 3:06:41was incorporated into our law for relationship does he think would
3:06:41 > 3:06:45then exist between our own Supreme Court and those interpretations as
3:06:45 > 3:06:52they continue to develop in the European Union?... The EU
3:06:52 > 3:06:55jurisdiction in this context, the European interpretation and I simply
3:06:55 > 3:06:59say it will involve this application of law. I simply say and it's a
3:06:59 > 3:07:03matter of assertion but fact and law that is precisely what will happen.
3:07:03 > 3:07:08To accept my right honourable and learned friend's and other friends
3:07:08 > 3:07:13amendments on the charter, I urge them not to press them because it
3:07:13 > 3:07:19would be totally unacceptable and I would just like to refer to what I
3:07:19 > 3:07:23have alluded to already, the principle set up a Lord Justice
3:07:23 > 3:07:27Bingham, in chapter 12 of his magisterial book as I said, on the
3:07:27 > 3:07:32rule of law and sovereignty of Parliament, he obviously criticised
3:07:32 > 3:07:37the attitudes of Baroness Hale, now President of the Supreme Court and
3:07:37 > 3:07:42Lord Craighead in their attitude to suggesting you courts have
3:07:42 > 3:07:46constitutional authority and I would read out what he said... He says
3:07:46 > 3:07:51with respect to the whole question of parliamentary sovereignty and the
3:07:51 > 3:07:58issue of the courts, various remarks had been made but no authority was
3:07:58 > 3:08:02cited to support them and no detailed reasons forgiven. I come
3:08:02 > 3:08:07for my party said, I cannot accept that my colleagues observations are
3:08:07 > 3:08:14correct. He then went on to say to my mind, being convincingly shown by
3:08:14 > 3:08:17the Professor who is one of the greatest authorities on the subject,
3:08:17 > 3:08:22that it has been recognised that the principle of parliamentary
3:08:22 > 3:08:25sovereignty is recognised as fundamental in this country not
3:08:25 > 3:08:31because judges invented it because it has centuries been accepted as
3:08:31 > 3:08:33judges and by judges and others officially concerned in the
3:08:33 > 3:08:37operation of our constitutional system. The judges did not by
3:08:37 > 3:08:41themselves establish the principle and cannot I themselves change it.
3:08:41 > 3:08:46What is at stake said the professor is the location of ultimate
3:08:46 > 3:08:51assertion making authority. He then goes on to say if the judges were to
3:08:51 > 3:08:53repudiate the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty by
3:08:53 > 3:08:59refusing to allow Parliament to infringe on the rights they would be
3:08:59 > 3:09:02claiming the ultimate authority for themselves. Moreover he goes on to
3:09:02 > 3:09:08say, and they would be transferring the rights of Parliament to judges
3:09:08 > 3:09:12call it would be a transfer of power by the judges to protect rights
3:09:12 > 3:09:17chosen by them rather than brought about democratically by
3:09:17 > 3:09:21Parliamentary enactment or popular referendum. I have to say therefore
3:09:21 > 3:09:27with some irony that it is the Centre for the rule of law which is
3:09:27 > 3:09:31putting forward some of the country arguments. Yes, I will.My
3:09:31 > 3:09:35honourable friend is making some excellent points about Parliamentary
3:09:35 > 3:09:38sovereignty but can I also make this point to him because I'm not sure
3:09:38 > 3:09:41it's been made? Has been a cosy consensus so far in this debate that
3:09:41 > 3:09:47everything about European human rights is wonderful and we want to
3:09:47 > 3:09:52transfer it into our own law, actually, many of us think the
3:09:52 > 3:09:54advancement of European so-called human rights has been at the
3:09:54 > 3:09:57detriment of the rights of other people particularly of religious
3:09:57 > 3:10:02people, to find their own space because European equality laws trump
3:10:02 > 3:10:05all other laws. When we retain wreaking Parliamentary sovereignty
3:10:05 > 3:10:09in this House and through our democracy, we can start asserting
3:10:09 > 3:10:14the right to real human rights.I would agree with that general
3:10:14 > 3:10:17proposition and I would also add as I've said before in this debate,
3:10:17 > 3:10:22it's off to us to make our own laws and we can make them, we can't
3:10:22 > 3:10:28listen to the arguments, make the amendments, recognise rights, human
3:10:28 > 3:10:34rights as I did in my equality and international developer build which
3:10:34 > 3:10:38was enacted and I entirely agree with the sentiments of my honourable
3:10:38 > 3:10:42friend for that reason. Lord and went on to say we live in a society
3:10:42 > 3:10:46dedicated to the rule of law, I note my right honourable and learned
3:10:46 > 3:10:51friend's reference to that in which Parliament has powers subject to the
3:10:51 > 3:10:54mid southern post restraints to legislate as it wishes in which
3:10:54 > 3:10:58Parliament may therefore legislate in a way that infringes the rule of
3:10:58 > 3:11:03law and in which the judges consistently with with their
3:11:03 > 3:11:06constitutional duty to administer justice according to the law of the
3:11:06 > 3:11:11realm cannot fail to give effect to legislation if it is clearly and
3:11:11 > 3:11:18unambiguously expressed. I ought to add that in fact Lady Hale went on,
3:11:18 > 3:11:22this territory again, before she was made President of the Supreme Court,
3:11:22 > 3:11:27in a speech she made in Kuala Lumpur in November 2016, the Conservative
3:11:27 > 3:11:33Party opposed this bond which conferred treaty status on the
3:11:33 > 3:11:39charter, I say this with all respect because we get on pretty well, we
3:11:39 > 3:11:42had a chat, several chats in the last few days, but I do trust that
3:11:42 > 3:11:49he will report not only as a physician to the Lisbon Treaty
3:11:49 > 3:11:52itself and the then Attorney General, I think he followed me in
3:11:52 > 3:11:56that particular post, and therefore to the Chancellor but also more
3:11:56 > 3:12:00specifically, his reference in evidence to the European Union
3:12:00 > 3:12:04committee of the House of Lords on 9th of May 20 16. Where he said and
3:12:04 > 3:12:08I know he knows what I am about to say... But can I finish my quotation
3:12:08 > 3:12:12and then perhaps I will give way? The European Court of Human Rights
3:12:12 > 3:12:16is a very benign institution, whereas I happen to think that the
3:12:16 > 3:12:19European Court of Justice in Luxembourg as predatory qualities to
3:12:19 > 3:12:25it. Which could be very inimitable to some of our national practices. I
3:12:25 > 3:12:29would suggest that those are with respect to the question of this
3:12:29 > 3:12:35application through Act of Parliament.Shouldn't he say to my
3:12:35 > 3:12:40noble friend, this is fascinating but we're actually talking about
3:12:40 > 3:12:43retained EU law that will not be subject to the jurisdiction of the
3:12:43 > 3:12:51Court of Justice of the European Union. I do have criticisms of the
3:12:51 > 3:12:55way the CGE has acted and I have had the misfortune of appearing in front
3:12:55 > 3:13:00of it, it's purposive interpretation of law has often been challenging in
3:13:00 > 3:13:05our own national setting although it's not a pariah caught and
3:13:05 > 3:13:08actually by international standards is a pretty good tribunal so I stand
3:13:08 > 3:13:13for the points I made on that occasion, they in no way diminish or
3:13:13 > 3:13:21undermine anything I have said here this afternoon.Here here.I simply
3:13:21 > 3:13:24add I understand the reference to the European Court and its existing
3:13:24 > 3:13:27situation, not until we leave the European Union are we able to avoid
3:13:27 > 3:13:30the jurisdiction of the European Court anyway so there applies at
3:13:30 > 3:13:35least for the next two years and probably the next two after that and
3:13:35 > 3:13:39God knows what they will do in the meantime and the European Scrutiny
3:13:39 > 3:13:44Committee have been having meetings already on the laws that have been
3:13:44 > 3:13:47proposed since the European laws had been proposed since the general
3:13:47 > 3:13:54election. But the problem is... I want, actually, I appreciate the
3:13:54 > 3:14:00chair has indicated, I do have a knotted interventions and think the
3:14:00 > 3:14:04chair will understand as I did last time, I had six or eight
3:14:04 > 3:14:08interventions and it's quite impossible to get the argument out
3:14:08 > 3:14:12in reply to my right honourable and learned friend, in matters I have
3:14:12 > 3:14:16been discussing this for an extreme long time, something best part of 20
3:14:16 > 3:14:22years and to be constrained by, in fact, so I am not giving way to
3:14:22 > 3:14:27interventions. So, the position is, what lies behind these amendments is
3:14:27 > 3:14:33not the charter itself but the whole role of judicial interpretation and
3:14:33 > 3:14:38jurisprudence in its application to the UK. In respect of the fact that
3:14:38 > 3:14:44by virtue of the way in which the amendments were applied, we would be
3:14:44 > 3:14:50in a position in which the European, the Supreme Court would in fact
3:14:50 > 3:14:56inherit the power to invalidate and supply Act of Parliament. This is a
3:14:56 > 3:15:00matter of the great this constitutional significance. It also
3:15:00 > 3:15:04goes to the heart of the stability of this country and its rule of law
3:15:04 > 3:15:09which in its turn goes to the heart of the democratic system and the
3:15:09 > 3:15:13right of the British people to govern themselves from whichever
3:15:13 > 3:15:17party you come from, for whomsoever they voted in free elections,
3:15:17 > 3:15:21exercising their freedom of choice as to whom they decide to govern
3:15:21 > 3:15:24themselves until the next general election in question. All this is
3:15:24 > 3:15:28intrinsically balanced with the claims from the European Court
3:15:28 > 3:15:34itself, it is not impartial and I also say, as I have said in the
3:15:34 > 3:15:45previous debate, when the European Court adjudication is loose, and in
3:15:45 > 3:15:52the 60s and 70s, doing so on its own initiative or that any basis in EU
3:15:52 > 3:15:57treaties, until bill bond treaty which we on the side of the House,
3:15:57 > 3:16:00including my right honourable and learned friend opposed in the Lisbon
3:16:00 > 3:16:05Treaty. If this is what did I opposed it, he opposed it and I make
3:16:05 > 3:16:10that point to put it on the record. Dealers bond treaty as European
3:16:10 > 3:16:13Scrutiny Committee also demonstrated, was in effect the
3:16:13 > 3:16:20proposal for a European proposal by any other name. And it is part and
3:16:20 > 3:16:26parcel, the other characters, which is the drive towards political
3:16:26 > 3:16:31integration and its interpretation of law by the purpose of rule, even
3:16:31 > 3:16:34when the wording in question is neither obscure nor ambiguous.
3:16:34 > 3:16:38Furthermore, there are many more different purposes which may in fact
3:16:38 > 3:16:41from time to time be in conflict with one another but the driving
3:16:41 > 3:16:46force for them is the integration of this road map from which it never
3:16:46 > 3:16:50deviates and never will. It is the ultimate engineer of European
3:16:50 > 3:16:54integration. Equally it has a dog had a method of interpretation,
3:16:54 > 3:16:59neutralising the principal controller powers which were meant
3:16:59 > 3:17:03to be limited under articles for Macron five of the European Union
3:17:03 > 3:17:06treaty and by doing so, have extended the range and effect of
3:17:06 > 3:17:10European law by leaps and bounds. With these by the extensions of
3:17:10 > 3:17:15competence which in turn are everlasting and overarching and
3:17:15 > 3:17:20limitless. The European Court has never once an old a general EU
3:17:20 > 3:17:24legislative character apart from one occasion and when it did so it was
3:17:24 > 3:17:28re-enacted almost immediately. It is vermin at Lee on the march in favour
3:17:28 > 3:17:32of political integration and by any standards is more of a political
3:17:32 > 3:17:37than a judicial Court. The interaction of the case law and the
3:17:37 > 3:17:43effect that it will have in relation to the Supreme Court is of course of
3:17:43 > 3:17:49enormous importance. I would like to quote from Professor Eakin is,
3:17:49 > 3:17:54presenting evidence to the Brexit committee, Professor of Law at
3:17:54 > 3:18:02Oxford University. I will quote briefly what he said.
3:18:02 > 3:18:06Responsibility for deciding to repeal an EQ retain the law should
3:18:06 > 3:18:10be with political authorities, not with the courts and it is unwise to
3:18:10 > 3:18:14maintain the charter for a light challengers to this law. He goes on
3:18:14 > 3:18:19to say, the charter is a major destabilising force. He then says it
3:18:19 > 3:18:23would be better and safer to remove the charter from hard law on exit
3:18:23 > 3:18:33date. So, there we are. It would also be totally unacceptable to
3:18:33 > 3:18:38include discharge fully at the time of repeal of the European
3:18:38 > 3:18:41Communities Act and effectively to provide for our own European Court
3:18:41 > 3:18:48to the charter and empower the Supreme Court to alight enactments.
3:18:48 > 3:18:51There are many provisions in the charter which expressly involve EU
3:18:51 > 3:18:56law which themselves are inconsistent leaving the EU. I
3:18:56 > 3:19:01believe the amendments would not just be incongruous but
3:19:01 > 3:19:06contradictory. I would like to turn to the European Court itself. It is
3:19:06 > 3:19:11under attack from very substantial experience and external authorities.
3:19:11 > 3:19:15For example, a former judge of the European Court for as long as 13
3:19:15 > 3:19:22years who had previously been an adviser to the European Parliament
3:19:22 > 3:19:25in his farewell address to the European Court of Justice itself
3:19:25 > 3:19:28expressed withering criticism of them using such expressions as
3:19:28 > 3:19:34everything in this episode was shocking. This nonsense was
3:19:34 > 3:19:40maintained for many years. He refers to the lack of consultation, secret
3:19:40 > 3:19:45letters which left him speechless, ending with the accusation that the
3:19:45 > 3:19:55institutions's government system was not having the proper controls. He
3:19:55 > 3:20:01then went on to make a speech in September 2016 with regard to the
3:20:01 > 3:20:08future role of the ECJ in the context of Brexit. In it he says in
3:20:08 > 3:20:12relation to the citizens rights issue it is dangerous. He says that
3:20:12 > 3:20:17Article 50 was invented to show the EU was not a prison. He said that
3:20:17 > 3:20:22the guidelines for the negotiations include a connection with the desire
3:20:22 > 3:20:27to keep some aspects of EU law applied in the UK, and the further
3:20:27 > 3:20:34describes this as it could create an incredible legal Viper's nest. He
3:20:34 > 3:20:40says the UK would become the only third state submitting to the
3:20:40 > 3:20:43jurisdiction of the European Court and he concludes by saying one
3:20:43 > 3:20:48wonders how this is considered acceptable for a sovereign state?
3:20:48 > 3:20:53These sort of comments demonstrate a real problem with these EU
3:20:53 > 3:20:57guidelines because as he points out, and it's clear, the EU institutions
3:20:57 > 3:21:02do not seem to be able to accept the massive change which Article 50
3:21:02 > 3:21:09actually made to the European Union itself. Turning to amend content,
3:21:09 > 3:21:13the general principles are legal principles recognised by this
3:21:13 > 3:21:17European Court, of which he has just described is wealth, and have been
3:21:17 > 3:21:22regarded for the EU as essential to the EU legal order. The art of the
3:21:22 > 3:21:26EU's primary law that the same status as the treaties with primacy.
3:21:26 > 3:21:32Under schedule one, which we are debating, the European Court would
3:21:32 > 3:21:38no longer be able to supply UK act of Parliament on other legislation
3:21:38 > 3:21:42on the grounds it conflicts with the general principles. That is as it
3:21:42 > 3:21:47stands. Nor could they be made the basis of the -- judicial review.
3:21:47 > 3:22:01Given the second reading of the repeal Bill, I do have the greatest
3:22:01 > 3:22:06difficulty in understanding how it can be proposed to leave five
3:22:06 > 3:22:10paragraphs 1-3 and likewise other members of the opposition.
3:22:10 > 3:22:13Therefore, despite my honourable friend's voting for the second
3:22:13 > 3:22:19reading of the bill, this temp two protect witty and EU law from
3:22:19 > 3:22:24challengers on the grounds of breach of the general principles of EU law
3:22:24 > 3:22:27seems to be unacceptable. The general principles under the bill
3:22:27 > 3:22:33would only be part of domestic law if recognised by the European law
3:22:33 > 3:22:38before exit date. The bill would remove the jurisdiction of the
3:22:38 > 3:22:45European Court. As such over the UK after Brexit. Clause three requires
3:22:45 > 3:22:53any questions to effects of any EE you retain law must be decided by
3:22:53 > 3:22:58our domestic courts, including the Supreme Court. In effect, the
3:22:58 > 3:23:03amendment I believe would seek to make our courts continue to follow
3:23:03 > 3:23:08the other principles of EU law and ECJ jurisprudence, making thus
3:23:08 > 3:23:11increasing the informative the EU law and particularly to the general
3:23:11 > 3:23:15principles of that block and the outpourings of the European Court,
3:23:15 > 3:23:19enabling laws passed in this Parliament to be challenged where it
3:23:19 > 3:23:23diverges from EU law. This was include many matters, for example
3:23:23 > 3:23:26from some of the case law relating to National Security Council
3:23:26 > 3:23:30terrorism which is already covered in EU law. For all these reasons I
3:23:30 > 3:23:38would strongly urge my honourable friends to not pursue these
3:23:38 > 3:23:42amendments and for the host to reject them in the name of my right
3:23:42 > 3:23:46honourable friend and the opposition both individually and collectively.
3:23:46 > 3:23:51And also because they happen to be, as I think my right honourable
3:23:51 > 3:23:54friend agreed and conceded, technically defective and would not
3:23:54 > 3:24:02make sense as my right honourable friend conceded, for other reasons.
3:24:02 > 3:24:06As I indicated, the drafting of amendments is quite a complex matter
3:24:06 > 3:24:11and I am the first always do except that it may not meet the exact needs
3:24:11 > 3:24:15of the government, even if the government were to see to accept it.
3:24:15 > 3:24:19The position is very simple and I can only repeat it. This amendment
3:24:19 > 3:24:23will be put to the boat unless the government gives satisfactory
3:24:23 > 3:24:29assurances of being prepared to respond to it.I must say in
3:24:29 > 3:24:31conclusion therefore, and I do hope that my right honourable friend
3:24:31 > 3:24:35could not do what he has just suggested, they say that because not
3:24:35 > 3:24:40only are of a defective in respect of the match as he has already
3:24:40 > 3:24:47preferred, but they are probably also defective in respect of
3:24:47 > 3:24:52paragraph five. The actual provisions with to paragraphs 1-3,
3:24:52 > 3:24:57but actually there are also difficulties in relation to the
3:24:57 > 3:25:03amendment with respect to paragraph five, which will go into now because
3:25:03 > 3:25:08I have made my remarks, but I do sincerely urge my right honourable
3:25:08 > 3:25:12friend to listen to the arguments and to accept the that the very good
3:25:12 > 3:25:17reasons it would not be appropriate to press these amendments to a vote.
3:25:17 > 3:25:25Stephen Timms.I rise to move amendment 151, which at first sight
3:25:25 > 3:25:30looks rather technical, but actually references as we have already
3:25:30 > 3:25:34established in this debate, a hugely important issue for the UK economy.
3:25:34 > 3:25:38I am grateful to those of all parties across the house who have
3:25:38 > 3:25:44signed the amendment down to the Deputy Speaker for selecting it for
3:25:44 > 3:25:47debate. The amendment deals with future electronic communication
3:25:47 > 3:25:55between the UK and remaining member states of the European Union. The
3:25:55 > 3:25:57government's future partnership paper on this topic, published over
3:25:57 > 3:26:03the summer, in August, was absolutely right to highlight just
3:26:03 > 3:26:09how important an issue this is for the UK economy. That paper pointed
3:26:09 > 3:26:15out that the UK accounts for not .9% of the world's population, 3.9% of
3:26:15 > 3:26:22the world's GDB but 11.5% of the world's cross-border data flows. 75%
3:26:22 > 3:26:30of that being with other EU countries. This is an enormously
3:26:30 > 3:26:34important issue, particularly for the UK economy, given its reliance
3:26:34 > 3:26:40on the digital parts of the economy. The government is absolutely right
3:26:40 > 3:26:47to argue that we must avoid restrictions on cross-border data
3:26:47 > 3:26:51flows because they would affect the UK more than almost any other
3:26:51 > 3:26:57country in the world, I think. It is also right to point out that the UK
3:26:57 > 3:27:01has very strong personal data protection, currently being
3:27:01 > 3:27:05strengthened by the new data protection Bill is being debated at
3:27:05 > 3:27:10the moment in the other place. That will bring an arrangement in line
3:27:10 > 3:27:15with the EU's general data protection regulation and the
3:27:15 > 3:27:20government is absolutely right to make that point as well. But, we
3:27:20 > 3:27:26fear is nevertheless a serious potential problem and the problem is
3:27:26 > 3:27:31because the edifice of data privacy law in the UK rests on Article 8 of
3:27:31 > 3:27:38the Charter of fundamental rights and under clause 54 of this bill,
3:27:38 > 3:27:42Article 8 will not be part of domestic law after we have left the
3:27:42 > 3:27:47European Union. With the emission of article he had from our law, will
3:27:47 > 3:27:54that make any practical difference to how the law works in the UK?
3:27:54 > 3:27:58There have been some suggestions that it won't, but the evidence I
3:27:58 > 3:28:02want to put to the house is that in fact it will. We have prepared
3:28:02 > 3:28:06already in the debate in the exchange between the honourable
3:28:06 > 3:28:12member for Edinburgh South West and Felton and Heston to the evidence
3:28:12 > 3:28:18given by Doctor Brian, senior lecturer at York Law School to the
3:28:18 > 3:28:24Select Committee on exiting the EU. She said exclusion of the Charter is
3:28:24 > 3:28:29problematic for a number of reasons. I want to quote a couple of the
3:28:29 > 3:28:33points that you made. She said that a large number of appeal cases in UK
3:28:33 > 3:28:39courts which cited the Charter, and that a lot of cases have to be read
3:28:39 > 3:28:44differently and it is not clear how they are to be read differently. One
3:28:44 > 3:28:52of the appeal cases in discussion here, and we have preferred to this
3:28:52 > 3:28:56number of times already in the course this debate, involved by
3:28:56 > 3:29:02right honourable friend the member for West Bromwich East and the
3:29:02 > 3:29:04current Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the
3:29:04 > 3:29:10right honourable member for Helton Price and hide in.Just listen to
3:29:10 > 3:29:14what he said about the court case, wouldn't it be the case of we didn't
3:29:14 > 3:29:18have the Charter for fundamental rights, wouldn't all those cases
3:29:18 > 3:29:24simply cite the other pieces of legislation that he mentioned? So
3:29:24 > 3:29:27the general data protection regulation and the bill we are
3:29:27 > 3:29:29currently passing through Parliament? I don't see the problem
3:29:29 > 3:29:37he is trying to fix.I believe the answer to his question is that we
3:29:37 > 3:29:42don't know what the outcome will be. I suggest to him the right
3:29:42 > 3:29:47honourable member might well not have won his case against the
3:29:47 > 3:29:52government if he hadn't been able to rest on Article 8. The honourable
3:29:52 > 3:29:58member for Banbury might have persuaded the court that the then
3:29:58 > 3:30:01Home Secretary, neither Prime Minister, was right and watching was
3:30:01 > 3:30:08doing and that the right honourable member was wrong. But we don't know.
3:30:08 > 3:30:15We don't know what that Appeal Court would have decided, but there is
3:30:15 > 3:30:19certainly a very strong case, I would put to him, and I think he is
3:30:19 > 3:30:22rather implicitly accepting the point that of Article 8 had not been
3:30:22 > 3:30:26there for him to rest on the outcome of that case and lots of others, it
3:30:26 > 3:30:35could well have been different from what happened. So, to quote Doctor
3:30:35 > 3:30:40Brian again, she made the point that the gap that is created by not
3:30:40 > 3:30:46having the Charter of fundamental rights and UK law is probably
3:30:46 > 3:30:51clearest in the case of data protection because of the Charter,
3:30:51 > 3:30:55I'm quitting her directly, creating fairly specific, concrete rights
3:30:55 > 3:30:59that are not necessarily enunciated in exactly the same terms elsewhere.
3:30:59 > 3:31:05I think that is the answer to the intervention I have just been
3:31:05 > 3:31:13responding to, that these rights are not readily available elsewhere. I'm
3:31:13 > 3:31:18delighted to hear from the Minister that we are going to get a document,
3:31:18 > 3:31:22I think he said by the 5th of December, setting out all the rights
3:31:22 > 3:31:25in the Charter of fundamental rights and where they can be found
3:31:25 > 3:31:29elsewhere in UK law. That will make interesting reading. I will make the
3:31:29 > 3:31:36point at this stage that a number of experts are saying that some of the
3:31:36 > 3:31:40rights, particularly as is the case with Article 8, is not elsewhere. It
3:31:40 > 3:31:46will be interesting to see what the document -- what that document says.
3:31:46 > 3:31:52I will read the first couple of points in Article 8. It says
3:31:52 > 3:31:59everyone has the right to protection of personal data concerning him or
3:31:59 > 3:32:04her. Such data must be processed fairly to specified purposes and on
3:32:04 > 3:32:10the basis of the consent of the person concerned, or some other
3:32:10 > 3:32:15legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to
3:32:15 > 3:32:19data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right
3:32:19 > 3:32:25to have it rectified. I think that is the point which has been
3:32:25 > 3:32:29mentioned a couple of times in this debate, that there is a right to be
3:32:29 > 3:32:33forgotten. The right to have it rectified that is set out in Article
3:32:33 > 3:32:378 which provides that. And it was on to say that needs to be an
3:32:37 > 3:32:41independent body in charge of this. That visit. That is what article it
3:32:41 > 3:32:46says.
3:32:46 > 3:32:50What my amendment would do is to say that that needs to be on the statute
3:32:50 > 3:32:55book in the UK. I don't think those forms of what would cause great
3:32:55 > 3:32:59difficulty to the Government. I think we all agree that those are
3:32:59 > 3:33:03appropriate things, but they just need to be explicitly on the face of
3:33:03 > 3:33:09the law so that they can be drawn on in the future. Because they are not
3:33:09 > 3:33:17set out clearly elsewhere. The minister, in responding to an
3:33:17 > 3:33:20earlier intervention, prompted I think by a comment from the
3:33:20 > 3:33:28solicitor Jane Young -- general, suggested that the article of human
3:33:28 > 3:33:32rights was sufficient. That is the right to respect for private and
3:33:32 > 3:33:36family life and I can see there is of a connection, but article eight
3:33:36 > 3:33:41of the European Convention of human rights doesn't even mention data,
3:33:41 > 3:33:46and if the Government thinks they're going to get the European Commission
3:33:46 > 3:33:49to confirm our data protection is adequate on the basis of article
3:33:49 > 3:33:54eight of the EC HR, then they really are in for a rude shock in due
3:33:54 > 3:34:00course. It doesn't cover them at all. The right honourable member for
3:34:00 > 3:34:06Beaconsfield suggested a way forward, FIA understand him
3:34:06 > 3:34:12correctly -- if I understand him correctly, it could be put into a
3:34:12 > 3:34:16parliamentary bill giving them a status on par with the Human Rights
3:34:16 > 3:34:22Act. Certainly, if the Government wants to move in that direction, I
3:34:22 > 3:34:28agree, that would meet the aims of my amendment. But this is not any
3:34:28 > 3:34:37longer spelt out clearly in UK law and their will be uncertainty about
3:34:37 > 3:34:42how UK data protection law will work after Brexit. That would, I think,
3:34:42 > 3:34:45be unfortunate. But there is a far more serious issue here at stake
3:34:45 > 3:34:51than a little bit of difficulty in how we interpret the law in the
3:34:51 > 3:34:55future, because if there is this lack of clarity, and there would be,
3:34:55 > 3:35:02it would put at risk the outcome of the European Commission's
3:35:02 > 3:35:06determination of whether data protection regulation in the UK is
3:35:06 > 3:35:10adequate, a technical decision that the commission will be called upon
3:35:10 > 3:35:15in the U course to make. And failure to secure such a determination would
3:35:15 > 3:35:25be catastrophic for the UK economy. -- in due course.If the European
3:35:25 > 3:35:30Commission makes a statement of equivalence, that has to go to a
3:35:30 > 3:35:34committee of the 27 member states, and it is for them to decide whether
3:35:34 > 3:35:42there is equivalent. The Institute of Government says that they will
3:35:42 > 3:35:46include a respect for fundamental rights and for redress. Both issues
3:35:46 > 3:35:53are in the Charter of EU fundamental rights, are they not?My friend, who
3:35:53 > 3:35:57is a lawyer in these matters, is absolutely right. I would add that
3:35:57 > 3:36:00the European Parliament has a role in all of this, so there is a
3:36:00 > 3:36:05political dimension to it as well. The position at the moment is that
3:36:05 > 3:36:10an EU member state -- as an EU member state, we can exchange data
3:36:10 > 3:36:13freely with others in the EU, governments, businesses and
3:36:13 > 3:36:24individuals. The minister, who is not in his place at the moment, from
3:36:24 > 3:36:28high Wycombe, the member for... He is there, I beg your pardon. He told
3:36:28 > 3:36:32the select committee when we talked about this that the Government would
3:36:32 > 3:36:39seek to include data flows in the wider negotiated agreement for the
3:36:39 > 3:36:43future deep and special partnership between the UK and the remaining
3:36:43 > 3:36:48member states of the EU, and I welcome that confirmation. Of
3:36:48 > 3:36:53course, we keep on being reminded that we might not get a deal, and
3:36:53 > 3:36:59the question is, what then? If we don't get the deal, and we don't get
3:36:59 > 3:37:03an adequacy determination, it will then be unlawful to send personal
3:37:03 > 3:37:08data from the European Union to the UK. At a stroke, there would be no
3:37:08 > 3:37:14lawful basis for the continued operation of a significant chunk of
3:37:14 > 3:37:17the UK economy, and that is the outcome that I hope all of us would
3:37:17 > 3:37:23agree we must, at all costs, are. Already, we're hearing that
3:37:23 > 3:37:31high-tech start-ups, who do need to have access to personal data, are
3:37:31 > 3:37:36starting to look at Berlin in preference to London because of the
3:37:36 > 3:37:41possibility that this problem might, in due course, arise. The Government
3:37:41 > 3:37:46that has -- the Government has argued that because we are fully
3:37:46 > 3:37:49implementing the GDP are, the commission will be unable to find
3:37:49 > 3:37:55fault with UK arrangements, even if we lose Article eight. I have to say
3:37:55 > 3:37:59to ministers, the UK technology sector does not agree, and my
3:37:59 > 3:38:03judgment is that the sector is absolutely right to be worried. It
3:38:03 > 3:38:09isn't just a theoretical danger. Canada, and as we have all heard,
3:38:09 > 3:38:14there has been a very long - running series of negotiations that have led
3:38:14 > 3:38:18to an ambitious agreement between Canada and the EU, but they have
3:38:18 > 3:38:22only a partial adequacy determination. If we were to end up
3:38:22 > 3:38:31with that, that would be extremely damaging for the UK economy. The US
3:38:31 > 3:38:36arrangements, known as safe harbour, were famously struck down as
3:38:36 > 3:38:41inadequate by the European Court of Justice in a case brought by an
3:38:41 > 3:38:47individual Austrian citizen in 2015, and that caused an enormous upheaval
3:38:47 > 3:38:53and the introduction very rapidly of new arrangements in the US
3:38:53 > 3:38:55regulation, called the privacy shield, but I understand that those
3:38:55 > 3:38:59are now being called into question by a new case at the European Court
3:38:59 > 3:39:09of Justice by the same Austrian citizen. So, Mr Hanson, the European
3:39:09 > 3:39:16Court of Justice is particularly sensitive over UK collection of -
3:39:16 > 3:39:21bulk collection - of data. That feature prominently in the case
3:39:21 > 3:39:35brought by the member for... The case considered whether
3:39:35 > 3:39:42investigatory Powers act powers went too far, allowing the state to
3:39:42 > 3:39:45breach personal data privacy, and the cases concluded that the powers
3:39:45 > 3:39:50did go too far, the powers introduced by the then Home
3:39:50 > 3:39:54Secretary, and it was Article eight specifically which was the basis for
3:39:54 > 3:39:59that conclusion. If Article eight is not in UK law any more, of course,
3:39:59 > 3:40:05it will make life easier perhaps for future Home secretaries who may wish
3:40:05 > 3:40:09to do the kind of thing that the previous Home Secretary tried to do.
3:40:09 > 3:40:15They are much less likely to be found in breach, and that may be one
3:40:15 > 3:40:19of the reasons why the current Prime Minister wants to keep the charter
3:40:19 > 3:40:24out of UK law, because of that rather bruising experience at the
3:40:24 > 3:40:30hands of her right honourable friend.I am very grateful to my
3:40:30 > 3:40:34right honourable friend, who is making a very powerful case. When we
3:40:34 > 3:40:38heard evidence from the Minister, he said that the Government would seek
3:40:38 > 3:40:43a data adequacy agreement, and like him, I would welcome that. But it's
3:40:43 > 3:40:50not entirely clear whether that can be achieved, but also, I had always
3:40:50 > 3:40:56understood that the data adequacy decision was a regulatory decision
3:40:56 > 3:40:59of the commission in respect of a third country, which my right
3:40:59 > 3:41:04honourable friend has made very clear in his previous remarks. And
3:41:04 > 3:41:09therefore, if there is no agreement, or it's not possibly possible to
3:41:09 > 3:41:15override that with an agreement, then all the points he has made are
3:41:15 > 3:41:19subject to challenge. It could go to court, go to another state. It
3:41:19 > 3:41:23demonstrates how much is at stake when it comes to getting this right.
3:41:23 > 3:41:28I absolutely agree. My understanding is that the shortest period ever
3:41:28 > 3:41:31achieved for securing a data adequacy agreement was 12 months, in
3:41:31 > 3:41:37the case of Japan. And very often, these things take a good deal
3:41:37 > 3:41:44longer. By exactly the same token, and for exactly the same reasons -
3:41:44 > 3:41:51that it may be a source of some satisfaction to the Home Office
3:41:51 > 3:41:55ministers - excluding article eight is an invitation to the European
3:41:55 > 3:41:59Commission and the European Parliament to find fault with UK
3:41:59 > 3:42:05data privacy regulation. Because the cases brought by the Right
3:42:05 > 3:42:14Honourable member for Halton price and Howden and others would not have
3:42:14 > 3:42:18succeeded if they relied on Article eight. And those who look on these
3:42:18 > 3:42:21matters on behalf of the EU will have no doubt at all in their minds
3:42:21 > 3:42:27that that would be the case, as far as I can see. I will give way.He is
3:42:27 > 3:42:31making an excellent case on a very complicated set of issues. I wonder
3:42:31 > 3:42:34if he would agree with me that the conclusion from some of the points
3:42:34 > 3:42:44he has just been making, this could end up being a highly political
3:42:44 > 3:42:47decision, and whatever the rights and wrongs made by the lawyers here
3:42:47 > 3:42:51today, we're politicians facing a political set of choices, and those
3:42:51 > 3:42:55who do not necessarily have our best interests at heart, we are
3:42:55 > 3:43:00absolutely offering them the opportunity to frustrate us in the
3:43:00 > 3:43:04future. Much easier to keep the charter.I think my honourable
3:43:04 > 3:43:09friend is absolutely right. It is an invitation, it is a terrible risk to
3:43:09 > 3:43:13take. Friendly, I think it is playing fast and loose with a very
3:43:13 > 3:43:18important part of the UK economy. So, let me finish by quoting the
3:43:18 > 3:43:24industry body representing that part of the UK economy, Tech UK, which is
3:43:24 > 3:43:27deeply concerned about this issue. It supports this amendment. They
3:43:27 > 3:43:31make this point Cole on the Government must do all it can to
3:43:31 > 3:43:36ensure that we are in the best possible position to secure
3:43:36 > 3:43:43adequacy, and this includes making clear at every opportunity that the
3:43:43 > 3:43:45UK's data protection framework is equivalent to the one we have
3:43:45 > 3:43:54operated as an EU member state. Mr Hanson, leading article eight of the
3:43:54 > 3:43:58statute book seriously imperils the future achievement of this adequacy
3:43:58 > 3:44:02determination. We will, of course, argue that our arrangements are
3:44:02 > 3:44:06adequate, but for data exchanges with EU countries, it will not be
3:44:06 > 3:44:10our call, it will be theirs. They will make the decision. The call
3:44:10 > 3:44:16will be made by officials and politicians in the EU, and by the
3:44:16 > 3:44:21European Court of Justice. It is running too great a risk for our
3:44:21 > 3:44:28digital economy, which at 10% of GDP is the biggest proportionately
3:44:28 > 3:44:35anywhere in the G20. And I do urge the House not to run that risk, not
3:44:35 > 3:44:41to play fast and loose with the UK economy, but to accept amendment 150
3:44:41 > 3:44:48one.Mark Harper.I am grateful. I should probably declare what is the
3:44:48 > 3:44:52opposite of an interest is, and say that unlike many who have spoken so
3:44:52 > 3:44:56far, I am not a lawyer but a humble accountant. Colleagues will forgive
3:44:56 > 3:45:01me if I don't always absolutely spot-on get the exact legal points
3:45:01 > 3:45:11that some people have been making. I will do my best. Let me just run
3:45:11 > 3:45:14through this in broadly chronological order as the debate
3:45:14 > 3:45:18has flowed, and I will make some contributions as I think pertinent,
3:45:18 > 3:45:23based on the arguments that have been made. Let me start with new
3:45:23 > 3:45:26clause 16, which the honourable member for Nottingham introduced. I
3:45:26 > 3:45:30think, I listened carefully to what he said, and I think that the
3:45:30 > 3:45:36Minister dealt with that effectively by committing quite explicitly the
3:45:36 > 3:45:38Government to produce the memorandum that the Secretary of State promised
3:45:38 > 3:45:43in evidence to the committee by the 5th of December, and I know there
3:45:43 > 3:45:48was a bit of an exchange from that corner of the chamber from my
3:45:48 > 3:45:51honourable friend, the member for West Dorset, trying to clarify
3:45:51 > 3:45:56whether that would be before we reached report stage. I fear it will
3:45:56 > 3:46:02be well before we reached report stage, because there are five
3:46:02 > 3:46:05committee days, and given the budget, even if we sat every single
3:46:05 > 3:46:08day and fitted them all in, I don't think we could get there by the 5th
3:46:08 > 3:46:13of December. We will have seen that memorandum whilst we are still in
3:46:13 > 3:46:18committee stage, so we will be able to see if what the Minister and the
3:46:18 > 3:46:21Government say is correct, which is that all of the articles in the
3:46:21 > 3:46:24Charter of fundamental rights actually have an underpinning in
3:46:24 > 3:46:30retained EU law foundation that will be brought into UK law and we will
3:46:30 > 3:46:35be able to see those, each of the rights adding that underpinning
3:46:35 > 3:46:39legal basis, and then we will be able to have that debate, and if
3:46:39 > 3:46:42members are not satisfied with the memorandum that the Minister
3:46:42 > 3:46:45Secretary of State has brought forward, obviously, that will leave
3:46:45 > 3:46:50open the option to table further amendments and report stage. I hope,
3:46:50 > 3:46:53therefore, that the honourable member for Nottingham East won't
3:46:53 > 3:46:57need to pursue his remarks. I just want to pick up - I know he's not in
3:46:57 > 3:47:02his place, but the remarks made by the Right Honourable member for
3:47:02 > 3:47:11Tottenham about signalling, and the messages that will be taken on this.
3:47:11 > 3:47:15It strikes me that if Likud when the Charter of fundamental rights came
3:47:15 > 3:47:21into force of the Lisbon Treaty, I sat through ten of the 12 days of
3:47:21 > 3:47:27debate on the Lisbon Treaty, although we were on that side of the
3:47:27 > 3:47:32house. It does seem to me that before that came into force we did a
3:47:32 > 3:47:36pretty good job in this country on protecting rights and we were
3:47:36 > 3:47:40certainly one of the best companies in the world at protecting rights
3:47:40 > 3:47:43and the idea that somehow if we don't have the Charter of
3:47:43 > 3:47:47fundamental rights dreadful things will befall a Saddam thing can be
3:47:47 > 3:47:53stood up. The specific example he gave which I think was about people
3:47:53 > 3:47:57who were held and used in the slavery and servitude around the
3:47:57 > 3:48:02world I think was a particularly bad example because this country having
3:48:02 > 3:48:05passed the modern slavery act under the specific leadership of the Prime
3:48:05 > 3:48:11Minister when she was Home Secretary demonstrated clearly with that
3:48:11 > 3:48:15ground-breaking act that it does not follow the world on these human
3:48:15 > 3:48:21rights matters, it leads the world. That was a ground-breaking bit of
3:48:21 > 3:48:27legislation. It gives us considerable legal powers to deal
3:48:27 > 3:48:31with Human Trafficking Bill and modern slavery and I think stands as
3:48:31 > 3:48:35a positive beacon in the world, rather than a -1 that he was
3:48:35 > 3:48:40suggesting. I just want to touch a little bit more on the thoughtful
3:48:40 > 3:48:51speech that may honourable friend made. The Minister has dealt with a
3:48:51 > 3:48:55lot of the points around clause five and we are yet to hear from the
3:48:55 > 3:49:00Solicitor General, but let me deal with both of those since I am only
3:49:00 > 3:49:08going to get speak once. On the points that might right honourable
3:49:08 > 3:49:13and learned friend made, I'm not sure he is entirely right when he
3:49:13 > 3:49:17talks about the quality rights in our legislation being underpinned
3:49:17 > 3:49:22from a European origin I will just draw on one of those that I know
3:49:22 > 3:49:26better than the others, which is the rights that we have in our
3:49:26 > 3:49:30legislation around disabled people. Although there are now incorporated
3:49:30 > 3:49:36in the equality act, we first put them into legislation, the full
3:49:36 > 3:49:40breadth of them, in the disability discrimination act which was brought
3:49:40 > 3:49:48him in 1995 by my right honourable friend, Lord Haig of Richmond,
3:49:48 > 3:49:52supported by Sir John Major when he was by Minister. That was derived
3:49:52 > 3:49:58not from the European bases, but on the American disabilities act which
3:49:58 > 3:50:01my right honourable friend went and studied them look how we could bring
3:50:01 > 3:50:08that into UK law. It was basically the entire basis which was then
3:50:08 > 3:50:12copied and put into the equality act when the previous Labour government
3:50:12 > 3:50:19was consolidating all of those equality rights. I took that
3:50:19 > 3:50:27legislation on the opposition benches. It seems to me it is not
3:50:27 > 3:50:31the case that all of our quality rights derived from European
3:50:31 > 3:50:38legislation. Very considerable ones are domestically generated. I
3:50:38 > 3:50:44thought his remarks highlighted an important issue and I think he
3:50:44 > 3:50:50teased them out very well. One point were would disagree with him the
3:50:50 > 3:50:52court and about where I am comfortable with the government
3:50:52 > 3:50:57excluding the Charter, but keeping in the underlying legislation is it
3:50:57 > 3:51:04seems to be the Charter is drawn in its language very loosely and in a
3:51:04 > 3:51:08way which is capable of expansive interpretation. It seems to me both
3:51:08 > 3:51:14the Charter and the European Convention are both living documents
3:51:14 > 3:51:18and they are updated as time goes forward. I have no complaints about
3:51:18 > 3:51:27that, but it seems to me that the way the European Convention and the
3:51:27 > 3:51:31Human Rights Act dealt with that I think the balance right, whether
3:51:31 > 3:51:35court can make a declaration of incompatibility of primary
3:51:35 > 3:51:39legislation, but can't strike it down. It effectively presents this
3:51:39 > 3:51:46House with a very clear challenge to either deal with that legislation or
3:51:46 > 3:51:51respond in some way to that declaration of incompatibility. I
3:51:51 > 3:51:56fear that the wrong we are trying to write, or the potential harm, and I
3:51:56 > 3:52:01think this is a point my right honourable friend flagged up as
3:52:01 > 3:52:05well, the harm that it does come at the risk of leaving the Charter and
3:52:05 > 3:52:10players rather than the underlying rights is it potentially allows
3:52:10 > 3:52:15either the ECJ, will that still has jurisdiction over us, or our Supreme
3:52:15 > 3:52:21Court, expand the scope of the Charter into areas that we currently
3:52:21 > 3:52:28haven't yet thought it may. I will come on to the data protection
3:52:28 > 3:52:31points more widely later, but it seems to be looking at Article 8 it
3:52:31 > 3:52:41is a good example, because it seems all three of the sub articles are
3:52:41 > 3:52:45all dealt with quite competitively by the Data Protection Act. The one
3:52:45 > 3:52:53addition I think is the bit about the rights to have it rectified. It
3:52:53 > 3:52:58seems to be the plain reading of that is in the Data Protection Act.
3:52:58 > 3:53:02The right to be forgotten, which I believe is the extension that the
3:53:02 > 3:53:06European Court of Justice read into that, is arguably not a right to
3:53:06 > 3:53:09have it rectified at all, there is an argument in fact that it is the
3:53:09 > 3:53:15opposite of that. To check facts within the public domain and expunge
3:53:15 > 3:53:21them, so to do the opposite of rectifying the record and actually
3:53:21 > 3:53:25delete information that is accurate, not misleading, should be in the
3:53:25 > 3:53:30public domain and get rid of it. You can argue about whether that is
3:53:30 > 3:53:33right or wrong, but I don't think it exists on a plain reading of that
3:53:33 > 3:53:39article. I think it is an example of judicial expansion. It is that
3:53:39 > 3:53:43mischief that the Minister is trying to deal with when he suggests that
3:53:43 > 3:53:52we remove the Charter from the underpinning rights and just leave
3:53:52 > 3:53:59the original rights as existing in European law in place.Can I
3:53:59 > 3:54:03challenge one of the points he has just made. If he looks at the data
3:54:03 > 3:54:08protection Bill being debated at the moment, it does not say everybody
3:54:08 > 3:54:13has the right to have their personal data protected. It doesn't set the
3:54:13 > 3:54:18right in those terms in the way that the article does. Particularly from
3:54:18 > 3:54:21a European perspective, but also from an Appeal Court perspective,
3:54:21 > 3:54:28that potentially is a problem.I will come onto that at the end of my
3:54:28 > 3:54:32remarks. He is right, we should deal with it in a serious way because it
3:54:32 > 3:54:36is a significant part of our economic present and I hope an
3:54:36 > 3:54:41increasing part of our economic future as we in this country are
3:54:41 > 3:54:45particularly well placed to take advantage of the Digital economy.
3:54:45 > 3:54:48The other point that my right honourable friend flagged up, which
3:54:48 > 3:54:54is an interesting one, is one of the fundamental arguments about rights
3:54:54 > 3:55:01legislation. He said, he pointed out that some of these decisions about
3:55:01 > 3:55:04potentially striking down Acts of Parliament, those decisions would
3:55:04 > 3:55:10have to be taken by the UK Supreme Court and not the European Court of
3:55:10 > 3:55:14Justice. He said he was very relaxed about that because he had great
3:55:14 > 3:55:18confidence in our judges, as do I. For rights legislation there is a
3:55:18 > 3:55:22different argument to have, and that is not about the nationality or
3:55:22 > 3:55:26otherwise of the judges in the court, but about whether those
3:55:26 > 3:55:31decisions should be taken by judges or by democratically elected
3:55:31 > 3:55:34politicians in this House. We had this argument when we were talking
3:55:34 > 3:55:39about prisoner voting, the whole argument not about the nationality
3:55:39 > 3:55:42of the judges of the court, but about whether it was a proper
3:55:42 > 3:55:46decision to be made in this democratically elected house ought
3:55:46 > 3:55:51to be made by judges interpreting a living document. So again that is
3:55:51 > 3:55:56one of the things that my right honourable and learned friend teased
3:55:56 > 3:56:03out in his remarks. Listening to the debate as it progressed, he accepted
3:56:03 > 3:56:09the amendments that he has tabled may not be the best way of dealing
3:56:09 > 3:56:13with the potential problems that the flags up. The exchange between the
3:56:13 > 3:56:18right honourable and learned member from Beaconsfield, right honourable
3:56:18 > 3:56:22friend from West Dorset was very interesting because what that seemed
3:56:22 > 3:56:27to flag up, and this comes to the debate on schedule one, which the
3:56:27 > 3:56:32solicitor was going to be replying to, amendment ten as is currently
3:56:32 > 3:56:37set out currently gets rid of paragraphs one, two and three. The
3:56:37 > 3:56:40recent ad I think my right honourable and Bernard Vent gave for
3:56:40 > 3:56:44removing paragraph three was because it talks about the general
3:56:44 > 3:56:48principles of EU law and not the retained principles. Of course,
3:56:48 > 3:56:52paragraph two is trying to deal with the retained principles by saying
3:56:52 > 3:56:57that we keep all the general principles that have been reflected
3:56:57 > 3:57:02in decided case law before exit date. I think that was an
3:57:02 > 3:57:06interesting discussion because it suggested that actually it may be
3:57:06 > 3:57:12possible for the Minister, the solicitor, to reflect on that debate
3:57:12 > 3:57:16and think about whether there is a way that the government could bring
3:57:16 > 3:57:23forward an amendment to the legislation report stage and clearly
3:57:23 > 3:57:26my right honourable and learned friend wanted a little bit of
3:57:26 > 3:57:31specificity on that. I don't agree with my friend who attempted the
3:57:31 > 3:57:35government to just accept the amendments and then correct them. I
3:57:35 > 3:57:39think having been in the position that the Solicitor General has been
3:57:39 > 3:57:44at the dispatch box, I would prefer the risk averse approach of inviting
3:57:44 > 3:57:48the host not to be tempted by the amendments and then come back
3:57:48 > 3:57:53afterwards. I accept that those attempted amendments -- who are
3:57:53 > 3:57:57tempted by the amendments will want a bit of detail from the solicitor
3:57:57 > 3:58:01about the nature of what he is going to reflect on and what he will bring
3:58:01 > 3:58:06forward. I know the solicitor is someone who can produce the right
3:58:06 > 3:58:13level of specificity -- specificity to give members confidence.What
3:58:13 > 3:58:20really this shows is that this is quite technical stuff. I know people
3:58:20 > 3:58:24get a bit agitated about lawyers, but it shows how good it is to have
3:58:24 > 3:58:28so many people on these benches who are lawyers, especially
3:58:28 > 3:58:32constitutional lawyers. Most people are very keen to get this bill by
3:58:32 > 3:58:36Donna constitutional level and the more we can thrash it around and get
3:58:36 > 3:58:41it sorted and reach compromises, the better it will be with the bill, the
3:58:41 > 3:58:46better it will be for Parliament and the better it will be with this
3:58:46 > 3:58:49Albright said business because it. Some of this division and bring us
3:58:49 > 3:58:55all together.There were two other points which came at which I think
3:58:55 > 3:59:00were useful once and I hadn't heard those specifically in this debate.
3:59:00 > 3:59:05One was in the era of rights where we could perhaps look at the
3:59:05 > 3:59:08discussion I know is underway and will be dealt with party in this
3:59:08 > 3:59:13bill but also in the withdrawal built around the extent to which
3:59:13 > 3:59:17certain important matters will only be dealt with in primary
3:59:17 > 3:59:21legislation, the ministers will be clear that they won't use the
3:59:21 > 3:59:24ability to change those important rights with secondary legislation.
3:59:24 > 3:59:29To some extent that has been dealt with by the fact we will be having
3:59:29 > 3:59:31the withdrawal Bill and the Secretary of State has committed
3:59:31 > 3:59:34that there will be certain things that will only be dealt with in
3:59:34 > 3:59:38primary legislation. The second thing, and I hope the Treasury bench
3:59:38 > 3:59:43will forgive me, because tempting to add discussion about amending the
3:59:43 > 3:59:47Human Rights Act is not something in my previous job I would be wanting
3:59:47 > 3:59:51to encourage, but there was a sensible argument about saying that
3:59:51 > 3:59:59if there are rights which we do think are important and is we don't
3:59:59 > 4:00:02think our adequately reflected in legislation, there is an argument at
4:00:02 > 4:00:08some point in due course, maybe not the majorly, but where some would
4:00:08 > 4:00:13benefit from being brought into the Human Rights Act. That is something
4:00:13 > 4:00:16that could be worth thinking about. It would need to be done carefully
4:00:16 > 4:00:20because when you start going through the process of amendments I don't
4:00:20 > 4:00:25know where it would end. Those two avenues of how we might deal with
4:00:25 > 4:00:34this I think were very sensible. So I think both on amendment eight and
4:00:34 > 4:00:37ten, my friend accept that that amendment eight might not be right
4:00:37 > 4:00:42to pursue, but on amendment ten, although I wouldn't agree with the
4:00:42 > 4:00:48member's approach, I think there is some reflection that members could
4:00:48 > 4:00:55do. If you can say something a little bit specific than I hope it
4:00:55 > 4:00:59will be able to persuade both my right honourable learned member from
4:00:59 > 4:01:03Beaconsfield and others that he has made enough of a specific commitment
4:01:03 > 4:01:09that they will feel comfortable not pressing amendment ten. Just a few
4:01:09 > 4:01:16more points before I conclude. Let me turn to the honourable member
4:01:16 > 4:01:32from Sheffield Central. He said that he did not think that rights were
4:01:32 > 4:01:36not as effective if the source or the writ of them wasn't clear. I
4:01:36 > 4:01:40hope my honourable friend the Minister dealt with that because in
4:01:40 > 4:01:43the memorable -- in the memorandum he will bring forward, it should be
4:01:43 > 4:01:48clear as to the source of each of the rights that are in the Charter
4:01:48 > 4:01:52of fundamental rights, and therefore we should be clear about the
4:01:52 > 4:01:57retained law being brought forward. I hope that central point of his
4:01:57 > 4:02:05argument will be dealt with. If we come back to Article 8 of the
4:02:05 > 4:02:08Charter of fundamental rights, which was a point my honourable friend the
4:02:08 > 4:02:13member for Chelmsford raised in a debate and also the fundamental
4:02:13 > 4:02:17underpinning of the right honourable member's from East Ham's argument,
4:02:17 > 4:02:22first of all my honourable friend from Chelmsford slightly overstated
4:02:22 > 4:02:26what the article says because she said it said that everyone owned
4:02:26 > 4:02:30their data, which is not what it says. It says they have the right to
4:02:30 > 4:02:36protect their personal data.
4:02:36 > 4:02:39She also made the point about the level at which it was necessary to
4:02:39 > 4:02:45be exactly the same as ongoing European legislation, and of course,
4:02:45 > 4:02:50this is one of the arguments that we're going to have, and this is
4:02:50 > 4:02:54pertinent to the Right Honourable gentleman's point about our trade
4:02:54 > 4:02:57and future relationship with the European Union. This will be the
4:02:57 > 4:03:01argument about whether we have to have exact regulatory matching, in
4:03:01 > 4:03:07other words, we have to stick to the letter of each piece of European
4:03:07 > 4:03:12legislation if we are to trade successfully, whether it is in
4:03:12 > 4:03:17goods, services or data, or whether we're going to have equivalent
4:03:17 > 4:03:22legislation which adequately protects and matches those rights,
4:03:22 > 4:03:25but we may perhaps deliver in a different way that is equivalent to
4:03:25 > 4:03:32those rights.I am very grateful for my honourable friend giving way. We
4:03:32 > 4:03:38had some very interesting evidence today in front of the select
4:03:38 > 4:03:47committee from the aerospace sector and the LI Manufacturing sector,
4:03:47 > 4:03:50which absolutely said, we want identical regulations around the
4:03:50 > 4:04:00safety of passengers -- the airline manufacturing sector. They want to
4:04:00 > 4:04:03be identically matched with Europe, so there will be some areas where we
4:04:03 > 4:04:08will have to have that regulatory matching.That's a very helpful
4:04:08 > 4:04:13point. What I would say is, there may well be areas where because of
4:04:13 > 4:04:23the nature of the product or service, the judgment is that exact
4:04:23 > 4:04:28matching of those regulations is the right thing to do. That may well not
4:04:28 > 4:04:32be the case in every single area, and it may be that what we need to
4:04:32 > 4:04:34do is have a sensible structure where we have some debate and decide
4:04:34 > 4:04:38what is the right thing to do, and we have those conversations with our
4:04:38 > 4:04:42European neighbours, and that will clearly be one of the big arguments
4:04:42 > 4:04:46as we negotiate that trade deal, because clearly, it is relevant to
4:04:46 > 4:04:51the extent to which we can then have different arrangements which will
4:04:51 > 4:04:57enable us to seize the undoubted opportunities there are are around
4:04:57 > 4:05:01the globe. There is an argument that says, although I was on the Remain
4:05:01 > 4:05:16side of the argument, that if we match every single standard European
4:05:16 > 4:05:24union brings in, we're not the benefit of leaving. It would defeat
4:05:24 > 4:05:28the purpose. Having decided to leave, we both need a good, deep
4:05:28 > 4:05:31relationship with our EU partners so we can continue trading, but we
4:05:31 > 4:05:34absolutely need to be able to take full advantage of every opportunity
4:05:34 > 4:05:38there this in getting that incremental business from around the
4:05:38 > 4:05:44globe. But we should absolutely listen to the businesses involved in
4:05:44 > 4:05:48these sectors and make the right decisions. Let me come onto the
4:05:48 > 4:05:52specific points that the Right honourable gentleman, the member for
4:05:52 > 4:05:57East Ham, made about his amendment 150 one. Laying regulations to
4:05:57 > 4:06:00create a fundamental right for the protection of data. Now, it seems to
4:06:00 > 4:06:07me that, and there is an argument here about the behaviour or not of
4:06:07 > 4:06:10our European partners, both member states and the commission, and it
4:06:10 > 4:06:16seems to me that if we deliver on legislation for the general data
4:06:16 > 4:06:20protection regulation in our data protection Bill, and we also have
4:06:20 > 4:06:26some of these other things that are also protected, if the European
4:06:26 > 4:06:30Union commission then decides for the wit will be political reasons
4:06:30 > 4:06:35that it is going to rule that there is an incompatibility with that, it
4:06:35 > 4:06:38seems to me that if they have made up their mind for political reasons
4:06:38 > 4:06:42that they are going to be mean and horrible to us and try to damage our
4:06:42 > 4:06:46economy, there is an very much we can do about that. And even if we
4:06:46 > 4:06:50did what the honourable gentleman said, they would dream up another
4:06:50 > 4:06:55excuse to damage as. I actually don't take the view that, firstly,
4:06:55 > 4:06:59if that is how they will be head, it is not an organisation I want to be
4:06:59 > 4:07:02part of, but I don't take the view that that is what the commission or
4:07:02 > 4:07:06the other member states are going to do. It's certainly not the way we
4:07:06 > 4:07:09have approached the negotiations. The Prime Minister has been clear
4:07:09 > 4:07:14that we want a deep and special partnership. We have made clear,
4:07:14 > 4:07:19which I think is relevant on this data area, that when it comes to
4:07:19 > 4:07:24security and intelligence cooperation, we will have an
4:07:24 > 4:07:29unconditional relationship with our European Union partners, that we use
4:07:29 > 4:07:32our assets and resources to help defend and protect European
4:07:32 > 4:07:37security. On that basis, it would be very churlish if the European
4:07:37 > 4:07:39Commission were to take the approach that the right honourable gentleman
4:07:39 > 4:07:46set out.I agree with him. I don't think the commission will be
4:07:46 > 4:07:50churlish or needlessly spiteful, but the problem is, if we do not have a
4:07:50 > 4:07:55clear right in law that everyone's personal data will be protected, and
4:07:55 > 4:07:58if article eight isn't there any more, we won't, that is an
4:07:58 > 4:08:02invitation to the commission to find against us. My point is, we
4:08:02 > 4:08:07shouldn't be taking that risk.I do accept that we shouldn't take
4:08:07 > 4:08:13unnecessary risks, but it seems to me that we could deal with that. I
4:08:13 > 4:08:15confess, I'm not completely across the content of the data protection
4:08:15 > 4:08:18Bill. I hope the Right honourable gentleman will forgive me. But it
4:08:18 > 4:08:22seems to me we could make sure we deal with that concern in that piece
4:08:22 > 4:08:26of legislation. And I think that would be something that ministers on
4:08:26 > 4:08:29the Treasury bench will no doubt listen to. The final point, because
4:08:29 > 4:08:34it was brought up on a number of occasions, and the one benefit that
4:08:34 > 4:08:37I have from being on the backbenches is that I don't feel the necessity
4:08:37 > 4:08:45to defend every aspect of ministers' behaviours, particularly for things
4:08:45 > 4:08:49they did before they were ministers. The case keeps being cited that the
4:08:49 > 4:08:51Secretary of State... The front benches looking worried because they
4:08:51 > 4:08:58don't know what I'm about to say. I have to say, two things: Firstly, I
4:08:58 > 4:09:01happen to think that he wasn't correct in the case that he brought
4:09:01 > 4:09:05against the Government, and I happen to think that the Prime Minister,
4:09:05 > 4:09:08when she was Home Secretary, was right in defending it. Also, we of
4:09:08 > 4:09:13course dealt with any potential defects though were in the data
4:09:13 > 4:09:19retention and investigatory Powers act of 2014 in the ground-breaking
4:09:19 > 4:09:23legislation that this House passed more recently, the investigatory
4:09:23 > 4:09:27Powers act. I am reasonably familiar with that legislation. I had to
4:09:27 > 4:09:32consider it when I was a member for Government in how we approach the
4:09:32 > 4:09:36House. I think the way we proceeded with that legislation, in bringing
4:09:36 > 4:09:41forward a bill that was in good shape at the start of the process,
4:09:41 > 4:09:44having a very flowery scrutiny process across parties, and
4:09:44 > 4:09:50actually, the opposition were broadly... I think we took a
4:09:50 > 4:09:54sensible, grown-up approach, because it was an important piece of
4:09:54 > 4:09:56legislation. I think we dealt with the existing concerns, and I think
4:09:56 > 4:10:01that is the right way to deal with these concerns. This House is
4:10:01 > 4:10:04capable of dealing with this sort of concerns, and I think it is this
4:10:04 > 4:10:09House that is the right place to deal with it. A final point, that
4:10:09 > 4:10:13piece of legislation, the same as the Modern Slavery act, is a model
4:10:13 > 4:10:17for legislation to deal with people being kept in servitude. The
4:10:17 > 4:10:23investigatory Powers act is and it -- is a ground-breaking piece of
4:10:23 > 4:10:29legislation about how you balance individual freedoms and rights to
4:10:29 > 4:10:32privacy but also the legitimate rights of the state to ensure that
4:10:32 > 4:10:36it protects those citizens from those that would do us harm, and I
4:10:36 > 4:10:43think this House and the other Place got that balance right, and I think
4:10:43 > 4:10:48we should have more confidence in ourselves as parliamentarians. I
4:10:48 > 4:10:52know the right honourable and learn that lady who speaks for the SNP
4:10:52 > 4:11:00have run a little bit. She is not in her place to have romped again --
4:11:00 > 4:11:03complained a little bit. It might be the right honourable member for
4:11:03 > 4:11:08Wokingham talking about this House being the place where we guarantee
4:11:08 > 4:11:11those freedoms, and she wasn't hugely impressed. I think the two
4:11:11 > 4:11:15examples I have given show that we should have a bit more
4:11:15 > 4:11:19self-confidence about this House being the place we dependency
4:11:19 > 4:11:22sensual brights, and I therefore come in the bill in its present
4:11:22 > 4:11:28shape to the house, and hope that honourable members on both sides
4:11:28 > 4:11:33don't press new clauses and amendments to the vote.Order. Can I
4:11:33 > 4:11:37just say to honourable members that I have no power to put a time limit
4:11:37 > 4:11:42on committee stage, but I do have the power to advise. My advise is
4:11:42 > 4:11:47this: We have 20 honourable members who wish to speak, and if we go at
4:11:47 > 4:11:51the current length, we will disappoint at least half of those
4:11:51 > 4:11:55members. I would advise members if they could to try to keep their
4:11:55 > 4:11:58speeches between ten and 12 minutes as a voluntary instruction from
4:11:58 > 4:12:07myself. Ellie Rees.Thank you, Mr Hanson. I beg to move new clause 79
4:12:07 > 4:12:10in my name and those of my right honourable and honourable friends
4:12:10 > 4:12:14and members from other parties. I want is the first and foremost that
4:12:14 > 4:12:18I recognise the UK has voted to leave the EU. It is an outcome that
4:12:18 > 4:12:22I did not vote for, but it is the position we find ourselves in. We
4:12:22 > 4:12:26now must make it incumbent upon ourselves to strengthen this
4:12:26 > 4:12:40legislation ahead of our exit from the EU, and I believe we can
4:12:44 > 4:12:46only fully achieve this by recognising what European
4:12:46 > 4:12:49integration has done for us over the last 40 years, and ways in which we
4:12:49 > 4:12:51can help each other going forward. Before entering Parliament, I was on
4:12:51 > 4:12:58employment rights lawyer for many years. For ten years, I gave advice
4:12:58 > 4:13:03on employment rights and I know how many of them come from Europe. As my
4:13:03 > 4:13:08explanatory note points out, new clause 79 would ensure that
4:13:08 > 4:13:12Parliament is kept abreast of changes in EU provisions regarding
4:13:12 > 4:13:16family friendly employment rights and gender equality, as well as
4:13:16 > 4:13:18committing the Government are considering their implementation.
4:13:18 > 4:13:24What is clear is that working parents and carers in the UK are
4:13:24 > 4:13:32struggling. The 2017 modern families index which examined the lives of
4:13:32 > 4:13:362750 working parents and carers found that over a third of working
4:13:36 > 4:13:40families say they haven't got enough time or money to see their family
4:13:40 > 4:13:45thrive. Half of parents agreed that their work - life balance is
4:13:45 > 4:13:50increasingly a source of stress. A third said that work had a negative
4:13:50 > 4:13:54effect on their relationship with their partner, and a quarter said it
4:13:54 > 4:13:59led to rows with their children. One in ten parents would consider
4:13:59 > 4:14:02resigning from work without having another job to go to. And the
4:14:02 > 4:14:07equality and human rights commission research shows that 54,000 new
4:14:07 > 4:14:11mothers may be forced out of their jobs in Britain each year as a
4:14:11 > 4:14:20result of pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The force it charity
4:14:20 > 4:14:24and trade unions amongst others continually fight to protect against
4:14:24 > 4:14:28these types of discrimination. I believe we have a collective
4:14:28 > 4:14:31responsibility to make sure that, amongst the cut and thrust of the
4:14:31 > 4:14:37Brexit negotiations, we help to protect the rights of workers and
4:14:37 > 4:14:41employees. People voted to leave the EU for many varied reasons, but they
4:14:41 > 4:14:46didn't vote to be worse off. Our laws on this matter must be no less
4:14:46 > 4:14:51favourable than they would have been happy UK remained a member of the EU
4:14:51 > 4:14:58beyond exit day. Indeed, the EU may well go on to legislate in ways to
4:14:58 > 4:15:03which we do not agree, and the wording of new clause 79 is clear it
4:15:03 > 4:15:08is there to inform, not commit. As many of my honourable friends
4:15:08 > 4:15:11pointed out during the previous day of committee stage, we must make
4:15:11 > 4:15:16every effort to keep this House aware of what advancements occur in
4:15:16 > 4:15:21Europe going forward. So, to be clear, this amendment isn't about
4:15:21 > 4:15:28binding the UK into implementing future EU directives in the family
4:15:28 > 4:15:32friendly, employment equality and gender space. Rather, it will ensure
4:15:32 > 4:15:38that Parliament is informed of any developments and commit the
4:15:38 > 4:15:40Government to considering of implementation. In her foreign
4:15:40 > 4:15:44speech, the Prime Minister signalled that the UK and the EU will continue
4:15:44 > 4:15:47to support each other as we navigate through Brexit, and I have much to
4:15:47 > 4:15:52say on the work that we have collectively achieved in Europe,
4:15:52 > 4:15:54strengthening workers' rights, maternity rights and employment
4:15:54 > 4:16:02practices. For example, the 1976 equal treatment directive
4:16:02 > 4:16:05established the principle of equality of treatment between women
4:16:05 > 4:16:12and men in terms of training and conditions. Another directive
4:16:12 > 4:16:15protected their health and safety are pregnant workers and
4:16:15 > 4:16:20breast-feeding mothers. It also prohibited dismissal due to
4:16:20 > 4:16:23pregnancy or maternity, and introduced paid time off for
4:16:23 > 4:16:28antenatal care. The 1993 working Time directive provided a maximum
4:16:28 > 4:16:3448-hour working week and a right to rest periods and paid holiday. The
4:16:34 > 4:16:371996 parental leave directive provided for the right to unpaid
4:16:37 > 4:16:43parental leave as well as time off for dependents. And in 1997
4:16:43 > 4:16:46part-time work director prevent part-time workers from being treated
4:16:46 > 4:16:53less favourably than full-time employees. All these measures have
4:16:53 > 4:16:56helped improve work- life balance and family friendly employment
4:16:56 > 4:17:01rights in the UK. It is vital that we do not fall behind Europe in the
4:17:01 > 4:17:05years ahead. To dismiss the last four decades of progress without
4:17:05 > 4:17:09looking to the future is a dangerous precedent to set, and one which
4:17:09 > 4:17:15fills me with deep concern. For some time, UK law has been ahead of the
4:17:15 > 4:17:20EU on certain employment rights, most notably, in my view, the 2002
4:17:20 > 4:17:23employment act right to request flexible working. But we cannot
4:17:23 > 4:17:27assume this will always be the case. Those involved in politics know how
4:17:27 > 4:17:33quickly things can change.
4:17:33 > 4:17:36Several loads legislative and non-legislative initiatives related
4:17:36 > 4:17:41to work where balance which aim to give parents more choice, increase
4:17:41 > 4:17:45participation in the labour market and allow businesses to benefit from
4:17:45 > 4:17:50talent attraction and retention of recently put forward at EU level.
4:17:50 > 4:17:53They suggest that parental leave should be paid at a minimum of
4:17:53 > 4:17:59statutory sick pay levels. This is currently on paid in the UK. Nearly
4:17:59 > 4:18:03three quarters of young mums and dads told the TUC earlier this year
4:18:03 > 4:18:06they currently worry about the potential loss of earnings that
4:18:06 > 4:18:12comes with this right. The EU has also suggested carers leap of five
4:18:12 > 4:18:16days per year paid at a minimum of statutory sick pay levels. And it is
4:18:16 > 4:18:21worth noting that carers UK reprimanded right for five days a
4:18:21 > 4:18:27year to be taken to look after someone in a time of need of care
4:18:27 > 4:18:32and support. Further measures to support women's bridges patient in
4:18:32 > 4:18:35the liberal market is crucial. I don't need to remind honourable
4:18:35 > 4:18:42members that the UK's gender pay gap remains at 18%. There are 11 million
4:18:42 > 4:18:47working parents in the UK comprising more than a third of the workforce.
4:18:47 > 4:18:51Yet as working families research shows many are considering
4:18:51 > 4:18:57downgrading their career. We cannot have a successful post-Brexit UK
4:18:57 > 4:19:00economy if such a sizeable proportion of the workforce are
4:19:00 > 4:19:05unable to reach their economic potential. In addition to the EU is
4:19:05 > 4:19:09consulting on access to social protection with a view to causing
4:19:09 > 4:19:12some of the gaps in rights that have opened between workers on different
4:19:12 > 4:19:18employment contract. It is exploring extending abiding statement of day
4:19:18 > 4:19:21one night to more workers and this is something that Matthew Taylor
4:19:21 > 4:19:25called for in his review of mother and employment practice and has been
4:19:25 > 4:19:31called for more recently by both the business, energy and industrial
4:19:31 > 4:19:34strategy and the Work and Pensions Committee. What is coming down the
4:19:34 > 4:19:38line at EU level is in step with the direction of travel parliament has
4:19:38 > 4:19:41indicated it would like to take. Members have nothing to fear from
4:19:41 > 4:19:48this amendment. The family friendly rights that come from Europe are not
4:19:48 > 4:19:51bureaucratic overzealous red tape. That some members in this place
4:19:51 > 4:19:55would have us believe. They are the idea that individuals can be
4:19:55 > 4:19:59employed without discrimination, that they can be treated fairly at
4:19:59 > 4:20:01work and expectant mothers are given the right to maternity leave without
4:20:01 > 4:20:06fear of losing their job. The general election in June members in
4:20:06 > 4:20:10this hasn't stood on a manifesto pledge to protect worse place
4:20:10 > 4:20:18lights. I hope we will consider these predators. And if if there is
4:20:18 > 4:20:24not this progress and will seek to divide this House.Let me just start
4:20:24 > 4:20:29by saying I believe that this Bill works and will do what it says on
4:20:29 > 4:20:34the tin. I note that no one has come up with a better plan to extricate
4:20:34 > 4:20:38ourselves from the EU will stop the recent government announcement that
4:20:38 > 4:20:43we should have a Bill to set up the withdrawal and implementation period
4:20:43 > 4:20:47will provide a good opportunity to readdress legal complexities and
4:20:47 > 4:20:51tweaks that may become necessary, instance to these proposals on human
4:20:51 > 4:21:00rights changing due to EU negotiations. However as ever the
4:21:00 > 4:21:07detail is, this is still something of an unpolished gem. Looking at
4:21:07 > 4:21:11Clause five, which would change the role of the principle of the
4:21:11 > 4:21:15supremacy of EU law post-Brexit the map and act as a car back to having
4:21:15 > 4:21:20the concept of having retained EU law, many of the related issues were
4:21:20 > 4:21:24debated on day one in relation to close six with both clauses five and
4:21:24 > 4:21:32six in place once the EU exit, it will no longer be supreme, UK courts
4:21:32 > 4:21:39won't to follow ECJ judgments made up except day. Time for a gripe. I
4:21:39 > 4:21:43would say generally speaking I think the minister's decision to speak
4:21:43 > 4:21:46twice on different issues within the same group has been somewhat
4:21:46 > 4:21:49unhelpful because it has disconnecting the various parts of
4:21:49 > 4:21:54what we are debating. I would agree two groupings may have been
4:21:54 > 4:21:59preferable but that was not on offer from yourself and so having had my
4:21:59 > 4:22:06gripe by now move on. However I would make the point that amending
4:22:06 > 4:22:10Clause five to deal with the requirement of the withdrawal
4:22:10 > 4:22:12agreement, or even an incompatibility with that could be
4:22:12 > 4:22:18activated by use of force nine enemy of the eight powers or alternatively
4:22:18 > 4:22:23by delaying implementation clauses five and six, the powers that the
4:22:23 > 4:22:26Government currently wishes to men but I hope they want. To set
4:22:26 > 4:22:31different except days to different purposes. To have the position lined
4:22:31 > 4:22:34out in the newly proposed implementation Bill could cause
4:22:34 > 4:22:39course also be an option. This is a likely issue to be considered as the
4:22:39 > 4:22:44Prime Minister as I think on the 22nd of December of course supported
4:22:44 > 4:22:48to transition period and noted that the framework for this to keep
4:22:48 > 4:22:52time-limited period which can be agreed under Article 50 would be the
4:22:52 > 4:22:56existing structure of EU laws and regulations. The Government has
4:22:56 > 4:23:00since complained that the EU has been slow to talk about and
4:23:00 > 4:23:05implementation period which is certainly of concern. It has been
4:23:05 > 4:23:09described as a wasting asset. But this should not reduce our urgent
4:23:09 > 4:23:12need to consider how we would actually implement it. There is no
4:23:12 > 4:23:17doubt that from reading the views of a significant number of experts and
4:23:17 > 4:23:21from what we have heard given in evidence to us on the Brexit Select
4:23:21 > 4:23:26Committee that there is some level of confusion as to the meaning of
4:23:26 > 4:23:31subclauses 5.1 to 5.3 of the Bill. I hope the Government will clarify our
4:23:31 > 4:23:36position and I had to say much of the evidence was itself conflicting
4:23:36 > 4:23:39as to its importance. For instant people queried the intended effect
4:23:39 > 4:23:45of Clause 5.1, is it only deck of the restatement or rather is it
4:23:45 > 4:23:49something out the position for the retention of the principle in Clause
4:23:49 > 4:23:535.2? The point is that the relationship between supremacy of EU
4:23:53 > 4:23:59law and retain law is not clear to many. As Professor Mark Elliott
4:23:59 > 4:24:03noted if retained EU law is the mystical or can it inherently
4:24:03 > 4:24:07supremacy of the EU law. Would retain law on the clauses three and
4:24:07 > 4:24:11four benefit from the supremacy of EU law as provided for in Clause
4:24:11 > 4:24:175.2? Professor Cerberus in his written evidence to Select Committee
4:24:17 > 4:24:22said the Bill may be handled in various ways, for example Clause 5.4
4:24:22 > 4:24:26excludes the charter, Clause 6.2 states the courts need not have any
4:24:26 > 4:24:31regard to anything done on or after exit today by the European Court and
4:24:31 > 4:24:35schedule one excludes Dragovic damages. It remains unclear whether
4:24:35 > 4:24:42these exclusions only to the retention of EU law and
4:24:42 > 4:24:46interpretation of retained EU law, or whether they also apply to the
4:24:46 > 4:24:51principle of supremacy of EU law in Clause five. In effect I have seen
4:24:51 > 4:24:55enough in decision on this for me to think that the minister needs to
4:24:55 > 4:25:00expand on the interpretation of supremacy principle. Of course if
4:25:00 > 4:25:03domestic courts decide on the context and meaning of law
4:25:03 > 4:25:08post-Brexit, then domestic judges are going to respond to the towns as
4:25:08 > 4:25:14I'm sure they are very capable so doing. Clearly we should help them
4:25:14 > 4:25:18doing this as much as possible by giving clarity on issues although
4:25:18 > 4:25:24ultimately they will have to judge. Judges will have fully do their
4:25:24 > 4:25:30best. I don't see what could be put in the Bill that could make this an
4:25:30 > 4:25:37easy process for judges. However as Sir Stephen laws said to our
4:25:37 > 4:25:39Committee there is already an existing principle whereby when
4:25:39 > 4:25:44deciding on law the courts will look at foreign judgments and treat them
4:25:44 > 4:25:49as persuasive if not binding. Mr Richard Ekins took this a stage
4:25:49 > 4:25:54further and thought that the provision is only there, but, to
4:25:54 > 4:25:58make it the case that no one thinks judges are doing anything wrong if
4:25:58 > 4:26:03they read EU judgments. And that you could delete the cause and they
4:26:03 > 4:26:08think the judges would properly do the same thing. " .4 except the
4:26:08 > 4:26:12Charter of fundamental rights from being converted into domestic law.
4:26:12 > 4:26:16The first point here is that whether or not one agrees with this
4:26:16 > 4:26:19provision one could ask whether this is the right service provision built
4:26:19 > 4:26:24into it. This argument was made by the honourable member Sheffield
4:26:24 > 4:26:27Central and it says that this Bill is about converting EU law into UK
4:26:27 > 4:26:30law to have a functioning rule book rather than dealing with policy
4:26:30 > 4:26:34issues. That is providing legal certainty rather than reshaping
4:26:34 > 4:26:39rights. We could have had a stand-alone build to deal with this
4:26:39 > 4:26:42but I am not personally convinced that this would have helped the
4:26:42 > 4:26:46process or indeed the outcome. In fact contrary. I think having the
4:26:46 > 4:26:50benefit of the Clause five debate running contemporaneously is
4:26:50 > 4:26:54helpful. If only ministers had thought the same in their grouping
4:26:54 > 4:26:59of today's amendments. In terms of the Charter itself there are as a
4:26:59 > 4:27:04matter of fact certain extra rights other than those that exit under the
4:27:04 > 4:27:09Human Rights Act of 1998 that exist under the Human Rights Act, such as
4:27:09 > 4:27:17the right to dignity and a right for protection of personal data. There
4:27:17 > 4:27:23are also a wider class of potential applicants which includes anyone
4:27:23 > 4:27:27sufficient interest, also arguably stronger remedies are available in
4:27:27 > 4:27:31certain circumstances. This however still all has to be within the scope
4:27:31 > 4:27:34of EU law and I agree with the Government that the charter will
4:27:34 > 4:27:38lose its relevance after Brexit. But in the wider context of us I think
4:27:38 > 4:27:42it is important to debate this issue. I have strong doubts that
4:27:42 > 4:27:50will be losing much by removing the charter if we get the drafting of
4:27:50 > 4:27:54this Bill right, because many charter rates will form part of the
4:27:54 > 4:27:57general principles of EU law as has been explained in earlier
4:27:57 > 4:28:01contributions and thereby will be retained by Clause 6.7 and schedule
4:28:01 > 4:28:05one for the purpose of interpreting retained EU law. The attention of
4:28:05 > 4:28:09the charter will also go against the principle of English course taking
4:28:09 > 4:28:15control. There may be initial teething problems but I note the
4:28:15 > 4:28:18Minister, honourable member for work and timely Select Committee that an
4:28:18 > 4:28:21EU legal source exists for each chapter right such that judges will
4:28:21 > 4:28:26be required to look at the underlying source law or rights of
4:28:26 > 4:28:32considering cases but Brexit. Rather than the charter. I am not sure this
4:28:32 > 4:28:36is quite adequate as it seems as though started in the build there
4:28:36 > 4:28:39will still be no right of action on domestic law based on a failure to
4:28:39 > 4:28:44comply with any of these general principles of EU law and the courts
4:28:44 > 4:28:48will not be able to does buy any new law because it is incompatible with
4:28:48 > 4:28:52any of these general principles including fundamental rights.
4:28:52 > 4:28:54Amendment ten tabled by right honourable friend for Beaconsfield
4:28:54 > 4:28:59would therefore address this by allowing challenges to be dropped to
4:28:59 > 4:29:06retained EU law, after Brexit, after on grounds it is in breach of the
4:29:06 > 4:29:10general principles of EU law.Does he agree with me that actually a
4:29:10 > 4:29:18different amendment could achieve the same purpose by restricting that
4:29:18 > 4:29:24part of schedule one to dealing with non-retained general principles of
4:29:24 > 4:29:28law so that retained principles could form a basis for a rate of
4:29:28 > 4:29:32action?This is the point that he made in an earlier intervention and
4:29:32 > 4:29:37I think he makes a per point. I would like to say here I am very
4:29:37 > 4:29:40open and went to hear what the Government has to say and I look
4:29:40 > 4:29:49forward to the contribution on this later on. The concept sounds
4:29:49 > 4:29:52reasonable to me not least if we are to get rid of the chartered and I
4:29:52 > 4:29:58will be listening carefully but I do think I agree that the charter also
4:29:58 > 4:30:01has significantly added to the complexity of human rights
4:30:01 > 4:30:05applications and that this Bill will in Rivington charter provide an
4:30:05 > 4:30:08opportunity to simple buy things moving forward outside of the EU.
4:30:08 > 4:30:12The minister did promise to deliver to the Select Committee and I think
4:30:12 > 4:30:16to date a memorandum on charter rates. I note the idea provided by
4:30:16 > 4:30:21New Clause 16 proposed by the honourable gentleman for Nottingham
4:30:21 > 4:30:24East of a report being produced to review the implications of removal
4:30:24 > 4:30:29of the charter. I would happily accept the Minister's assurance on
4:30:29 > 4:30:33this rather than legislate for it and hopefully the document will be
4:30:33 > 4:30:38delivered to the Committee by the 5th of December and cover the two
4:30:38 > 4:30:41issues as I believe I think the Minister said it did in his earlier
4:30:41 > 4:30:46contribution. My underlying acceptance of the Bill's position
4:30:46 > 4:30:52here is premised on the remaining as it exists a significant and
4:30:52 > 4:30:55meaningful body of human rights legislation in this country. This
4:30:55 > 4:30:59would include common law and HRH underpinned by the European
4:30:59 > 4:31:02Convention on Human Rights. I was therefore very pleased that my
4:31:02 > 4:31:08honourable friend on behalf of the Government took this opportunity to
4:31:08 > 4:31:17accept the need for retention of the EC HR in the post Brexit.Thank you.
4:31:17 > 4:31:23I rise to speak on the amendments that are designed to retain the
4:31:23 > 4:31:27charter and on New Clause 70 eight. I listened carefully to what the
4:31:27 > 4:31:34Minister said earlier on the subject of New Clause 78 but I would urge
4:31:34 > 4:31:38him, if the Government is not inclined to contain the whole
4:31:38 > 4:31:45chartered to at least need look at it will protect some equality.
4:31:45 > 4:31:48Members on the opposite side would like to argue that when Britain
4:31:48 > 4:31:57decided to join the EEC in 1975 of the British people voted for was an
4:31:57 > 4:32:00economic union, no less, no more, and that only after which the EU
4:32:00 > 4:32:06became a political union which now we should leave. However if one
4:32:06 > 4:32:09looks at the fundamental role played by deep dish in drafting the
4:32:09 > 4:32:15European Convention of human rights in 1950 this is not true, it aimed
4:32:15 > 4:32:19to prevent fundamental freedoms for all Europeans and was and by British
4:32:19 > 4:32:25values. Or post for involvement in Europe has always been far more than
4:32:25 > 4:32:29just an economic marriage of convenience. We British have worked
4:32:29 > 4:32:32diligently with our European neighbours to ensure that anyone
4:32:32 > 4:32:37joining the union of European countries has to guarantee their
4:32:37 > 4:32:40citizens social political and civil rights that we believe are necessary
4:32:40 > 4:32:45to create an equal and just society. I am saying that because sometimes
4:32:45 > 4:32:53it really troubles me that we are creating at them and asked language.
4:32:53 > 4:32:59European legislation is ours, we should be proud of it, we shouldn't
4:32:59 > 4:33:05be afraid of it. It is due to this legacy that other countries look to
4:33:05 > 4:33:09others as a global leader in quality as if rights and we must make sure
4:33:09 > 4:33:13that this bill does not leave the door open for our rights to be
4:33:13 > 4:33:20eroded if we leave the EU. But at the very least replaces the equality
4:33:20 > 4:33:25protections that we are currently afforded through EU law. The Bill is
4:33:25 > 4:33:36to safeguard the quality of the law with regard to human rights.
4:33:36 > 4:33:41Therefore, it is important to address any potential gaps. Today's
4:33:41 > 4:33:53debate has been about whether there are gaps or not.
4:33:53 > 4:34:00The government's plan not to retain the EU charter for fundamental
4:34:00 > 4:34:05rights is a big concern. This will affect substantive rights and legal
4:34:05 > 4:34:09protections for individuals in the UK and therefore the bill as it
4:34:09 > 4:34:13stands does not honour the government's commitment to protect
4:34:13 > 4:34:21existing rights. The process of leaving the US is already extremely
4:34:21 > 4:34:26complex and unpredictable and the removal of the charter risks
4:34:26 > 4:34:29creating an additional level of uncertainty and instability and the
4:34:29 > 4:34:34opposite side has not managed to persuade me that this instability
4:34:34 > 4:34:39and uncertainty does not exist and I'm also a member of the Brexit
4:34:39 > 4:34:44select committee and legal opinion is definitely divided on this issue.
4:34:44 > 4:34:49The charter rights form part of the general principles of EU law. Since
4:34:49 > 4:34:55we are retaining all other EU law, why not the charter? Transposing a
4:34:55 > 4:35:01wide and complex body of EU law while not transposing the
4:35:01 > 4:35:04fundamental principles that underpinned them, seems very
4:35:04 > 4:35:09irrational. It would create a significant uncertainty of the
4:35:09 > 4:35:20meaning of retain EU law and create uncertainty when in future disputes
4:35:20 > 4:35:25retained EU law is interpreted. The government has pledged that removal
4:35:25 > 4:35:31of the charter will not lead to a reduction of rights in the UK yet a
4:35:31 > 4:35:34number of rights contained in the charter either do not have
4:35:34 > 4:35:40equivalent protection existing in domestic law or they have
4:35:40 > 4:35:45significantly broader scope than those found elsewhere. Charter
4:35:45 > 4:35:55rights without equivalent include those relating to children. The
4:35:55 > 4:35:58freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal
4:35:58 > 4:36:03data, we have heard a lot about this today already, the right to physical
4:36:03 > 4:36:08and mental integrity and a guarantee of human dignity. Those are extra
4:36:08 > 4:36:12rights that are not replicated so far in our own legislation. The
4:36:12 > 4:36:19charter gives it explicit affect the rights not matched elsewhere.
4:36:19 > 4:36:25Charter rights have their origins in the United Nations treaties but the
4:36:25 > 4:36:28UK has not incorporated UN human rights treaties into domestic law so
4:36:28 > 4:36:34they do not have direct effect and do not provide equivalent protection
4:36:34 > 4:36:37to that currently provided by the charter. If unamended, the charter
4:36:37 > 4:36:44rights would be unenforceable in UK courts. The loss of the charter
4:36:44 > 4:36:51means the government risks failing to fulfil the responsibilities it
4:36:51 > 4:36:57has signed up to to avoid any regression in human rights. If I may
4:36:57 > 4:37:02miss quote the honourable member for Beaconsfield, one day the penny jobs
4:37:02 > 4:37:10that we live in a global world with international responsibilities.
4:37:10 > 4:37:16Without a like-for-like replacement would in fact the a reduction in
4:37:16 > 4:37:24rights.She speaks of those living in a global environment and is
4:37:24 > 4:37:27absolutely right to do so and she would also like knowledge as has
4:37:27 > 4:37:33been said on both sides that Britain leads the way in laws for equality
4:37:33 > 4:37:38and therefore what is her concern bearing in mind that the Human
4:37:38 > 4:37:46Rights Act of 1998 will still remain operative.I think it has been made
4:37:46 > 4:37:50very clear, also by legal experts that we have listened to in the
4:37:50 > 4:37:54select committee, there are currently gaps. What's the point of
4:37:54 > 4:37:58not taking the charter into retained EU law as a whole because we are
4:37:58 > 4:38:02taking everything else anyway. And make sure that these gaps are not
4:38:02 > 4:38:08there.Will she agree with me that it is very hard to substance yet the
4:38:08 > 4:38:13claim that Britain leads the world on equality rights when we have so
4:38:13 > 4:38:17often had to fall back on the charter to fill gaps in our equality
4:38:17 > 4:38:20laws, as for example in the Walker case before the supreme court last
4:38:20 > 4:38:29summer.A good point. I will say and I'm proud of the British legacy of
4:38:29 > 4:38:34fundamental rights but as clear as it seems to be stated in a lot of
4:38:34 > 4:38:39legal cases, I'm not a legal expert, lawyers are using different accounts
4:38:39 > 4:38:44of the law because different laws apply to different cases and that is
4:38:44 > 4:38:48why we have it and we would lose a fundamental protection if we didn't
4:38:48 > 4:38:59have the charter.A very quick one indeed. Thank you. I don't wish to
4:38:59 > 4:39:03criticise the UK Government because in many ways and instances they do
4:39:03 > 4:39:09lead the way in signing up to UN conventions and as the minister made
4:39:09 > 4:39:15quite clear last week, in terms of international law, the UK adopts a
4:39:15 > 4:39:20dual system so it's all very well for the UK Government to sign and
4:39:20 > 4:39:24ratify UN conventions and treaties but they don't actually become part
4:39:24 > 4:39:32of our domestic law unless there is an implementing act of Parliament.
4:39:32 > 4:39:37So, yes, we send out a signal that we lead the way but in terms of
4:39:37 > 4:39:41enforceable rights, the honourable lady, the Right Honourable Lady is
4:39:41 > 4:39:44quite right, the rights of the children are not enforceable in UK
4:39:44 > 4:39:49courts.As a non-legal expert I believe it is about having a
4:39:49 > 4:39:54safeguard. We are keeping the law and the charter because it is
4:39:54 > 4:39:59something that fills the gap that we would otherwise not have. That for
4:39:59 > 4:40:06me is the reasons why we should retain the charter. Let me give you
4:40:06 > 4:40:09an example. The charter provides specific rights for children which
4:40:09 > 4:40:16are not replicated elsewhere. It requires that the child's best
4:40:16 > 4:40:22interest must be a primary consideration in all actions
4:40:22 > 4:40:26relating to children, that children's views may be expressed
4:40:26 > 4:40:31and taken into consideration and children have a right to maintain a
4:40:31 > 4:40:35personal relationship with both their parents unless contrary to
4:40:35 > 4:40:46their well-being. The latter right was used in a ruling whereby an
4:40:46 > 4:40:52extradition was refused because of potential loss of contact with their
4:40:52 > 4:41:02father. The charter also contains a prohibition on child labour which is
4:41:02 > 4:41:11not replicated elsewhere in UK human rights law. Another example is on
4:41:11 > 4:41:14disability rights, disabled people would no longer be able to use the
4:41:14 > 4:41:18charter to support their right for independence, integration and
4:41:18 > 4:41:23participation in the community. This interpreted tool in the charter goes
4:41:23 > 4:41:37much further than mum disclosed -- non-disclosed permissions in the
4:41:37 > 4:41:44charter. Let's retain the charter. I can't help but wonder whether the
4:41:44 > 4:41:48government is making this obvious omission from our statute hooks
4:41:48 > 4:41:53because some time ago, the Home Secretary had aiding done with the
4:41:53 > 4:42:04charter when she failed to extradite Abu cut harder. What I'm really
4:42:04 > 4:42:11about is that we do everything but not in a big hurry because some
4:42:11 > 4:42:14eager Brexiteer 's would rather leave tomorrow and not think of the
4:42:14 > 4:42:23consequences that would mean real harm to this country. Let's come to
4:42:23 > 4:42:28the amendment tabled by the member for Carshalton. A guarantee of
4:42:28 > 4:42:39non-discrimination by the state. A domestic discrimination currently
4:42:39 > 4:42:44provided by EU law. This law serves a different process to the rights
4:42:44 > 4:42:48protected by the equality act of 2010. I urge the Minister to look at
4:42:48 > 4:42:53this again. It provides a guarantee that our Lord's must be
4:42:53 > 4:42:56non-discriminatory in their purpose and in effect is a mechanism to
4:42:56 > 4:43:01challenge them if they are. This cannot be done under the equality
4:43:01 > 4:43:07act. Providing greater protection for human rights has nothing to do
4:43:07 > 4:43:10with losing sovereignty but everything to do with doing the
4:43:10 > 4:43:17right thing to our own people. I'm frankly sometimes an fed up being
4:43:17 > 4:43:21branded a undemocratic and on page six when pointing out that the
4:43:21 > 4:43:26government is failing its own people if the bill is passed unamended.Can
4:43:26 > 4:43:33she tell others exactly what the amendment adds to the rights that
4:43:33 > 4:43:36exist already under Article 14 of the European cup and of human
4:43:36 > 4:43:50rights. -- European common.I take it that they have researched quite
4:43:50 > 4:43:53carefully why this would provide an extra guarantee that currently is
4:43:53 > 4:44:00not provided. The honourable member needs to look at the amendment very
4:44:00 > 4:44:05carefully to understand how it is meant to work but it is a mechanism,
4:44:05 > 4:44:11an overarching tool that currently we would not have. As a non-legal
4:44:11 > 4:44:17person, for me the safeguard of our equality laws that we are really
4:44:17 > 4:44:21matching what is done so far at European and international level is
4:44:21 > 4:44:29the most important thing for me. Brexit is increasingly nothing to do
4:44:29 > 4:44:35with what politicians promise to the people. I feel it is becoming an
4:44:35 > 4:44:39ideological driven process turning this country into some sort of
4:44:39 > 4:44:45deregulated free for all. The progress we made over the last four
4:44:45 > 4:44:47decades to protect individuals from exploitation and discrimination in
4:44:47 > 4:44:53tandem with our European neighbours is sacrificed on the altar of 70.
4:44:53 > 4:44:57British people did not vote to give away fundamental rights and
4:44:57 > 4:45:01protections. If Parliament is not amending this bill, let nobody claim
4:45:01 > 4:45:08that this is the will of the people. To reasonably is. -- Terry 's
4:45:08 > 4:45:09affiliate is.
4:45:17 > 4:45:22The ad like to say a few words about why I feel unable to support the
4:45:22 > 4:45:32amendments.I want to acknowledge the huge importance we should all
4:45:32 > 4:45:38place on the scrutiny of this historic piece of legislation. This
4:45:38 > 4:45:41is a critical part of implementing the huge decision made in the
4:45:41 > 4:45:46referendum by the people of our United Kingdom last year and the
4:45:46 > 4:45:59bill is also having a crucial role if we are going to avoid a regulator
4:45:59 > 4:46:04and gap between our laws and EU legislation. I fully respect the
4:46:04 > 4:46:08intentions of those who have put forward the amendments for
4:46:08 > 4:46:12consideration. At a time of great change for this country, it's
4:46:12 > 4:46:16important that we find ways to work across party divides and come
4:46:16 > 4:46:23together to make a success of the process of leaving the European
4:46:23 > 4:46:28Union and implementing the result of the referendum. My goal is a new
4:46:28 > 4:46:34partnership with our European neighbours and I hope it is one that
4:46:34 > 4:46:39those on both sides of the debate can be comfortable with. It is
4:46:39 > 4:46:44important to listen to a spectrum of views before our final terms of our
4:46:44 > 4:46:52departure are settled. As regards amendments on the charter, we
4:46:52 > 4:46:57already have a very extensive legal framework for providing strong
4:46:57 > 4:47:02protections for individual rights and freedoms in this nation. As well
4:47:02 > 4:47:07as the legal developments of the 20th century with the adoption of
4:47:07 > 4:47:11the European Convention on Human Rights, followed why a series of
4:47:11 > 4:47:16world leading equality statutes, we have a tradition of protecting the
4:47:16 > 4:47:20individual against arbitrary power by the state dating back to the
4:47:20 > 4:47:27Middle Ages. That includes common law remedies such as habeas corpus
4:47:27 > 4:47:37and the 13 81 statute of forcible entry that says every person of this
4:47:37 > 4:47:40nation can close their doors to the authorities unless they have a
4:47:40 > 4:47:47warrant. This undermines the case for the charter and I welcome the
4:47:47 > 4:47:50Minister's assurance that he will work to ensure that if there are any
4:47:50 > 4:47:56gaps in the coverage of our human rights, that is something that the
4:47:56 > 4:48:00government will look at. Secondly, retention of the charter would lead
4:48:00 > 4:48:05to real problems with uncertainty and instability within our legal
4:48:05 > 4:48:12system. As a number of members have mentioned. This includes the
4:48:12 > 4:48:18potential confusion between the charter and the European Convention
4:48:18 > 4:48:22on Human Rights and the effect of the charter whether applied to UK
4:48:22 > 4:48:27laws before or after exit gate cannot easily be predicted. We have
4:48:27 > 4:48:34had debates between noble and learned it friends, honourable and
4:48:34 > 4:48:37learning friends on the continuing role of the ECJ but certainly
4:48:37 > 4:48:41retention of the charter would give rise to the risk of continued
4:48:41 > 4:48:47influence by the rapidly evolving expansionist caselaw of the ECJ on
4:48:47 > 4:48:54the charter. As QC Martin Howell recently put it, the risk is it
4:48:54 > 4:49:00would open the door to judicial adventurism in our courts. Assuming
4:49:00 > 4:49:04that only pre-existing caselaw has relevance here, we have seen that
4:49:04 > 4:49:09the court has decided that the charter should be given a broad
4:49:09 > 4:49:15interpretation. So some of our laws and statutes could have a precarious
4:49:15 > 4:49:20state in the future if the amendment is passed.
4:49:21 > 4:49:26The amendments would give power to strike down from the statute with
4:49:26 > 4:49:30incompatibility.While this has been an aspect of EU member should not
4:49:30 > 4:49:34make it is not given to the domestic court in relation to compatibility
4:49:34 > 4:49:38with the Human Rights Act. By granting our domestic courts this
4:49:38 > 4:49:43power in relation to the charity would be a significant
4:49:43 > 4:49:47constitutional step as I think has been acknowledged by the red
4:49:47 > 4:49:52honourable member for Beaconsfield, I will say that would need abroad
4:49:52 > 4:49:57but -- broader more extensive debate than we have had. There are pros and
4:49:57 > 4:50:00cons in determining whether the final say on our laws should rest
4:50:00 > 4:50:06with parliament with judges but what I hope many will agree on is that
4:50:06 > 4:50:09this is a significant constitutional question. Before we can embark on
4:50:09 > 4:50:15that course of action I believe we would need to establish a stronger
4:50:15 > 4:50:21national consensus than we currently have for the charter.I am grateful
4:50:21 > 4:50:24for the right honourable lady giving weight but we are told by the
4:50:24 > 4:50:30Treasury front bench that these are existing rights that these rates
4:50:30 > 4:50:40apply now, and that these rights are rooted in legislation or before the
4:50:40 > 4:50:44European Court, so given that those rights that are applied now, why is
4:50:44 > 4:50:52she concerned, why does she not wish to protect them and ensure that
4:50:52 > 4:50:58those rates continue?But certainly the stated intention when the
4:50:58 > 4:51:03charter was originally drafted but they think the judicial activism of
4:51:03 > 4:51:10the ECJ has seen the scope of the charter expanded. I would return to
4:51:10 > 4:51:16this issue that what we are talking about essentially is the division of
4:51:16 > 4:51:19power between our courts and legislature and I don't believe we
4:51:19 > 4:51:24have a national consensus to deliver such a significant change to our
4:51:24 > 4:51:28constitution as to enable our domestic courts to strike down our
4:51:28 > 4:51:37laws.She talks about the charter causing expansion through the role
4:51:37 > 4:51:41of the ECJ. Can she give an example where it is actually been the
4:51:41 > 4:51:45charter which has called that expansion? Is at the reality that it
4:51:45 > 4:51:48is the European Commission on human rights rather than the charter which
4:51:48 > 4:51:54has tended to lead to expansion?Of course the key expansion as far as
4:51:54 > 4:51:57the United Kingdom is concerned is the confirmation by the European
4:51:57 > 4:52:07Court of Justice in I think one case that the charter did applied to the
4:52:07 > 4:52:12United Kingdom and the opt out what was supposedly obtained by Tony
4:52:12 > 4:52:20Blair was not valid. It brings me to my final reason for my scepticism
4:52:20 > 4:52:25about the charter and the amendment. I was an MEP during the period when
4:52:25 > 4:52:29the charter was drafted in the EU constitutional convention with a
4:52:29 > 4:52:34view to inserting it into the abortive EU constitution...Thank
4:52:34 > 4:52:42you. I am very grateful. As a very distinguished Secretary of State for
4:52:42 > 4:52:45Northern Ireland who did a really good job in that office, and I mean
4:52:45 > 4:52:50that most sincerely and I have the opportunity to say that, the right
4:52:50 > 4:52:55honourable lady will no to the UK withdrawing from the charter of
4:52:55 > 4:52:59fundamental rights will have an impact on the Good Friday Agreement
4:52:59 > 4:53:04and the perception that have the community will have in Northern
4:53:04 > 4:53:07Ireland about respect for human right, rightly or wrongly, so will
4:53:07 > 4:53:13the right honourable lady then encourage her government, or not, to
4:53:13 > 4:53:18draft a Bill of rights for Northern Ireland which of course is also a
4:53:18 > 4:53:22key part of the Good Friday Agreement?I can assure her that
4:53:22 > 4:53:25this government and I am sure all successive governments will remain
4:53:25 > 4:53:29strongly committed to the Good Friday Agreement, remain strongly
4:53:29 > 4:53:33committed to protection of individual rights, as you
4:53:33 > 4:53:38appreciate, the agreement expressly referred to the relation to human
4:53:38 > 4:53:42rights in the Good Friday Agreement as the European Convention on Human
4:53:42 > 4:53:49Rights, but I fully understand the point of view on this matter and I
4:53:49 > 4:53:54think it will always be important for us as a chamber to respect
4:53:54 > 4:53:57individual rights. The 10th of May speech is that we do not need the
4:53:57 > 4:54:06charter to enable -- tenant of my. We have extensible legal frameworks
4:54:06 > 4:54:12available to us to Parliament and judicial system to ensure we checked
4:54:12 > 4:54:16our citizens rather than look known and -- whether in Northern Ireland
4:54:16 > 4:54:21or in the rest of the United Kingdom. My final reason for
4:54:21 > 4:54:25concern, I will remember the clarity of the former Prime Minister Tony
4:54:25 > 4:54:28Blair that the charter would not be given legal force. As far back as
4:54:28 > 4:54:33the year 2000 both the Prime Minister and the Europe Minister of
4:54:33 > 4:54:38the day stated this very clearly for the House. In 2003 the Labour
4:54:38 > 4:54:42government's lead negotiator and the Convention Peter Hain said there was
4:54:42 > 4:54:46no possibility of the Government agreeing to incorporate the charter.
4:54:46 > 4:54:51In 2007 Tony Blair told parliament that we had an opt out from the
4:54:51 > 4:54:54charter and this approach was supported by a number of pro-EU
4:54:54 > 4:55:02grips such as the CBI. -- groups. Even the member for Rushcliffe
4:55:02 > 4:55:04expressed scepticism about the charter and described it as a
4:55:04 > 4:55:10needless diversion. While the ECJ may since have ruled that the opt
4:55:10 > 4:55:16out secured by Mr Blair was nothing of the sort, now we have the
4:55:16 > 4:55:21opportunity to see those promises fulfilled. We do have a long history
4:55:21 > 4:55:23of protecting the rights of individual against the arbitrary
4:55:23 > 4:55:29exercise of power by the state. We have ample means to do that in
4:55:29 > 4:55:33future and with hundreds of years of case law and statute establishing
4:55:33 > 4:55:38strong principles of accountability in our unwritten constitution and we
4:55:38 > 4:55:42can legislate in the future if we ever find any gaps in our current
4:55:42 > 4:55:46framework. We do not need the charter to protect our citizens and
4:55:46 > 4:55:49I would appeal to members not to accept the amendments being debated
4:55:49 > 4:55:59on the charter today.Kerry McCarthy.I rise to support
4:55:59 > 4:56:04amendments 101 and 105 tabled in my name. They relate to the debate we
4:56:04 > 4:56:07had an environmental principles on date two of this Bill particularly
4:56:07 > 4:56:12around new clauses 60 and 67 and New Clause 28 which was tabled in my
4:56:12 > 4:56:19name. As it stands at present UK laws arising from EU laws such as
4:56:19 > 4:56:21regulation and directives that do not comply with the general
4:56:21 > 4:56:25principles of EU law can be challenged and this applied.
4:56:25 > 4:56:28Aggressive actions taken under EU law must also apply with the general
4:56:28 > 4:56:34principles and I must say that the clarification because a lot of
4:56:34 > 4:56:37people are trying to follow the debate in this chamber at Committee
4:56:37 > 4:56:40Stage that perhaps wondering what on earth we are talking about so I am
4:56:40 > 4:56:45trying to make it as simple as possible with the public out there.
4:56:45 > 4:56:48And for perhaps some of us in the chamber as well. That is the
4:56:48 > 4:56:53situation as it stands at present while we are members of the EU, but
4:56:53 > 4:56:58post-Brexit schedule one, my interpretation poses unnecessary and
4:56:58 > 4:57:03unjustified restriction on how this applied and this is what might
4:57:03 > 4:57:07amendment seeks to rectify. Paragraph two schedule once stated
4:57:07 > 4:57:10that pertain principles will only be those that will be recognised were
4:57:10 > 4:57:15litigated by the Court of Justice of the EU in case decided before exit
4:57:15 > 4:57:18day. Only these will be retained in domestic law but other principles
4:57:18 > 4:57:22won't even if recognised in treaties. I know the Minister said
4:57:22 > 4:57:30in his response to New Clause 28 in the debate on date two was as
4:57:30 > 4:57:34because we need a cut-off point and we couldn't have ongoing
4:57:34 > 4:57:36interpretation of directives which would affect the situation in the
4:57:36 > 4:57:41UK. But I would argue there is still a real lack of clarity and there is
4:57:41 > 4:57:47a danger that if they only allow principles that are being litigated
4:57:47 > 4:57:53on to apply post-Brexit, but exit day, there is a danger that the
4:57:53 > 4:57:58noncontroversial on so people Dantorp Olmert will end up falling
4:57:58 > 4:58:02away where only the controversial ones are retained. It is also
4:58:02 > 4:58:06unclear whether these general principles include environmental
4:58:06 > 4:58:10principles. As general principles above being defined by the ECJ or by
4:58:10 > 4:58:13the treaties. If environmental principles are not expressly
4:58:13 > 4:58:17recognised as general principles they could be lost entirely and I
4:58:17 > 4:58:20hope the minister in his summing up can give us a bit of clarity on
4:58:20 > 4:58:24that. Paragraph three of schedule one explicitly limits the legal
4:58:24 > 4:58:27remedies available when general principles are contravened. Under
4:58:27 > 4:58:31this paragraph UK courts will no longer have the power to do so by
4:58:31 > 4:58:35domestic legislation on the grounds that it conflicts with these general
4:58:35 > 4:58:39principles. They could only be used like the pre-exit caselaw of the CJ
4:58:39 > 4:58:44EU to inform the interpretation by UK courts retained the law and are
4:58:44 > 4:58:48therefore appears at paragraph three, subsection two narrows the
4:58:48 > 4:58:53scope of judicial review that currently exists. In the last
4:58:53 > 4:58:56debates of my colleagues argued very eloquently as to the importance of
4:58:56 > 4:59:01judicial review in environmental cases, but also highlighted the fact
4:59:01 > 4:59:05that it is often inadequate and that is increasingly the case given the
4:59:05 > 4:59:12cap that is imposed. Schedule one paragraph 3.2 would further narrow
4:59:12 > 4:59:16the scope of judicial review and make it harder for the public to the
4:59:16 > 4:59:20Government to account. As discussed last week it is the Cubs courts are
4:59:20 > 4:59:26able to enforce principles and amendments 101 and 105 speak to this
4:59:26 > 4:59:28point. Amendment will no one clarifies that all existing
4:59:28 > 4:59:32principles of EU law will be retained within domestic law whether
4:59:32 > 4:59:37they originate in the caselaw of European Court EU treaties, direct
4:59:37 > 4:59:42EU legislation or EU directives. It also makes clear that the key
4:59:42 > 4:59:47environmental law principles in article 191 of treaty are retained.
4:59:47 > 4:59:51Amendment 101 therefore expands the meaning of general principles to
4:59:51 > 4:59:53specifically include the environmental principles. Following
4:59:53 > 4:59:59on from amendment 101 amendment 105 then six to retain the right of
4:59:59 > 5:00:01action in domestic law but the public to hold the Government to
5:00:01 > 5:00:06account for their breaches of principle. I know the Government is
5:00:06 > 5:00:10proposing an environmental principles policy and I have also
5:00:10 > 5:00:13questions how that would operate, whether on a statutory footing and
5:00:13 > 5:00:20so on, don't ask the Minister at this stage will they publish at
5:00:20 > 5:00:23least on a blind person of the principal policy with the click,
5:00:23 > 5:00:26while there is still sent to consider that in the invitations but
5:00:26 > 5:00:31this Bill? The ministers had been very fun so far in the Committee
5:00:31 > 5:00:36Stage of asking us to take their word for it, and I simply am not
5:00:36 > 5:00:39prepared to do that. I want to see what these policies would look like.
5:00:39 > 5:00:43I would also like the Minister to explain what the Government's
5:00:43 > 5:00:45objection is the idea of having internationally recognised
5:00:45 > 5:00:51principles of RAM at the love enshrined in UK statute. They can
5:00:51 > 5:00:54include the basic principles in UK law by accepting my amendment. It
5:00:54 > 5:00:57will provide us with much-needed reassurance that the Obama Secretary
5:00:57 > 5:01:01will win out against the trade Secretary in ensuring that future
5:01:01 > 5:01:06trade deals with countries such as the US will not lead to imports of
5:01:06 > 5:01:09chlorine what chicken and hormone from the beep on ourselves. The
5:01:09 > 5:01:14environment secretaries are currently said that the UK should
5:01:14 > 5:01:18say no to chlorine what chicken from the US and we should not delude our
5:01:18 > 5:01:26high safety standards in the pursuit of a trade deal. As was pointed out
5:01:26 > 5:01:29during the debate that sick environmental bonds. At the EU
5:01:29 > 5:01:32treaties have been instrumental in decisions such as the EU ban on
5:01:32 > 5:01:38imports of hormone fed beef. The moratorium and the control of
5:01:38 > 5:01:45release of genetically modified organisms in the EU. To conclude,
5:01:45 > 5:01:52date two saw a political consensus emerging on the value of an my
5:01:52 > 5:01:54mental principles such as the cautionary principle. As well as in
5:01:54 > 5:02:01other areas particularly Environment Secretary's Matip plan for a new
5:02:01 > 5:02:03independent body to the Government to account and I hope that when we
5:02:03 > 5:02:07come to consider the Government gap on future debut here more about what
5:02:07 > 5:02:14his plans are afoot this body. We also think got confirmation from the
5:02:14 > 5:02:17Environment Secretary although it was only from a sedentary position
5:02:17 > 5:02:21but he did intend to follow the environmental audit Committee
5:02:21 > 5:02:23recommendation and bring forward and environmental protection act and I
5:02:23 > 5:02:28hope that we hear more about that, the timetable and my understanding
5:02:28 > 5:02:32is the much delayed 25 year environment plan may be with us in
5:02:32 > 5:02:37the first quarter of next year as official as Bill come in from Debra,
5:02:37 > 5:02:40the agriculture Bill figures due out the summer recess. If the Government
5:02:40 > 5:02:44is going to bring forward an environmental protection act before
5:02:44 > 5:02:47exit day, it is going to have its work cut out to do that so it would
5:02:47 > 5:02:52be grateful to hear a bit more about that.
5:02:52 > 5:02:57As it stands this bill does not protect those environmental
5:02:57 > 5:03:02principles. The level of protection after Brexit date will not be as
5:03:02 > 5:03:06strong as before. I seek reassurances that he at least take
5:03:06 > 5:03:14steps to ensure that that is not the case.Broadly speaking, there have
5:03:14 > 5:03:18been to means of protecting human rights and international law. The
5:03:18 > 5:03:24first generally adopted by civil and continental law systems has been to
5:03:24 > 5:03:28adopt charters of general rights with very broad statements of those
5:03:28 > 5:03:33rights and then to turn over to the courts the interpretation into
5:03:33 > 5:03:39specific circumstances of how those rights should be applied. The
5:03:39 > 5:03:53second, generally, adopted by common law, by specific statutory remedies
5:03:53 > 5:03:58in specific circumstances which allows them to be extended in
5:03:58 > 5:04:03analogy with the facts of a particular case. With due respect to
5:04:03 > 5:04:08members opposite, it seems to me that they have made a mistake in
5:04:08 > 5:04:12equating the need for the incorporation of the charter with
5:04:12 > 5:04:18the protection of fundamental rights in this country. Article seven of
5:04:18 > 5:04:22the universal declaration of human rights in 1948 provided that also
5:04:22 > 5:04:27describing nations should respect the principle of equality but it was
5:04:27 > 5:04:34never suggested since 1948 that the United Kingdom because it did not
5:04:34 > 5:04:40incorporate into a general statement of equality right was not compliant
5:04:40 > 5:04:44with its international law obligations under the declaration
5:04:44 > 5:04:48and subsequently the covenant. Was not compliant with its duty to
5:04:48 > 5:04:54respect equality. That's because there are two ways you can protect
5:04:54 > 5:04:58human rights, either by adopting a general statement and leave
5:04:58 > 5:05:04protection to the courts or adopting specific remedies in given
5:05:04 > 5:05:08circumstances which cumulatively and substantively protect those rights.
5:05:08 > 5:05:14Nobody suggested that because the Soviet Union incorporated a right to
5:05:14 > 5:05:16equality in its constitution and its equality rights were better
5:05:16 > 5:05:22protected than in this country. I don't say that there isn't a
5:05:22 > 5:05:29function for such statements but let's begin with first it cannot be
5:05:29 > 5:05:32automatically equated, the failure or absence of a general state of
5:05:32 > 5:05:36rights such as in the charter with the protection of human rights. We
5:05:36 > 5:05:42have to look at the substantively effect of the cumulative common-law
5:05:42 > 5:05:47and statutory protections in our law. That is why when my right
5:05:47 > 5:05:51honourable friend for the Forest of Dean suggested that the government's
5:05:51 > 5:05:59approach is not to incorporate this charter of wide, broad, and quite
5:05:59 > 5:06:03frankly vague general statements of rights and then to allow courts to
5:06:03 > 5:06:09take those often rich with value judgments and apply them to the fax,
5:06:09 > 5:06:17that is why my right and honourable and learning friends approach on the
5:06:17 > 5:06:22front bench is right, I would suggest. And more consistent with
5:06:22 > 5:06:30the common law tradition of this country.I'm wondering which country
5:06:30 > 5:06:36he is talking about. The common law tradition melds with the civilian
5:06:36 > 5:06:41law in Scotland. The point that honourable members have been seeking
5:06:41 > 5:06:46to make, I take nothing away from this every date explanation to the
5:06:46 > 5:06:50background to this, the point honourable members have been seeking
5:06:50 > 5:06:55to make is having a fundamental charter of human rights part of our
5:06:55 > 5:07:01law gives ordinary citizens and businesses the opportunity to go to
5:07:01 > 5:07:06court to enforce the rights that this bill will take away from them.
5:07:06 > 5:07:12No such charter existed in binding legal force before 2009. Let's just
5:07:12 > 5:07:18look at the circumstances. There are two ways of doing it, I contend. The
5:07:18 > 5:07:24first is to have broad and general of human rights and to allow and
5:07:24 > 5:07:30extended human rights under the charter and to allow the courts the
5:07:30 > 5:07:38ability to interpretation of them in given circumstances. Some believe
5:07:38 > 5:07:43that the proper place to resolve moral dilemmas is not necessarily in
5:07:43 > 5:07:50a court. Why should a majority of five or nine judges take precedence
5:07:50 > 5:07:57to 650 members of this house on questions of moral dilemma. This
5:07:57 > 5:08:01will become a debate between lawyers and that is not the point. I'm not
5:08:01 > 5:08:09going to give way. The point is this, the broad and general rights
5:08:09 > 5:08:14are right with value judgments and quite often they are not
5:08:14 > 5:08:22appropriately dealt with by six or seven elderly white judges in a
5:08:22 > 5:08:25Supreme Court, but better resolved in this house, on the floor of this
5:08:25 > 5:08:32house by Democratic vote of this Parliament. I do need to develop an
5:08:32 > 5:08:39argument here. I want to move on. If we accept for the moment that there
5:08:39 > 5:08:43is a second and perfectly legitimate way of doing it, a way that
5:08:43 > 5:08:48international law and accepts, because international law does not
5:08:48 > 5:08:52require subscribing nations of the United Nations, neither does the
5:08:52 > 5:08:57European Court of Human Rights require, never did require, as to
5:08:57 > 5:09:01acquire a bill of rights. It looked that the substantive and practical
5:09:01 > 5:09:05effect and how those rights were protected in the jurisdiction. If we
5:09:05 > 5:09:09accept that for a moment, why should we not proceed by means of the
5:09:09 > 5:09:16government's proposed policy of examining specific statutory
5:09:16 > 5:09:20remedies, specific rules of common law and considering whether the
5:09:20 > 5:09:24right is satisfactorily protected. Some of ours believe that courts are
5:09:24 > 5:09:31not always the right place for these matters to be dealt with. And
5:09:31 > 5:09:35article 20, for example, of the charter of fundamental rights,
5:09:35 > 5:09:40simply contains a right to equality before the law. That has been
5:09:40 > 5:09:43enshrined in common law in this country for centuries. Why should we
5:09:43 > 5:09:50have it in the charter of human rights? Of fundamental rights. Some
5:09:50 > 5:09:55say there will be a problem between the two charters, the Human Rights
5:09:55 > 5:10:01Act... I will give way but not now if I may. Some say there will be a
5:10:01 > 5:10:06collision. I'm not sure that I buy the argument that there will be too
5:10:06 > 5:10:10much of a conflict or collision between the charter and the
5:10:10 > 5:10:14convention because quite frankly my experience in the courts is when you
5:10:14 > 5:10:21rely on both, the judge usually ignores the charter. The judge asks
5:10:21 > 5:10:27you, what does it add? You try to come up with something and the judge
5:10:27 > 5:10:32thereafter says, well, let's concentrate on the Human Rights Act,
5:10:32 > 5:10:38shall we? And the convention. I do not deny that a modest extension in
5:10:38 > 5:10:43the courts, but a modest extension, has been affected in very recent
5:10:43 > 5:10:51years by the charter. The case of Ben Kaboul she is an example where
5:10:51 > 5:10:59the applicant in that case was able to set aside part of the immunity
5:10:59 > 5:11:08from suit that the immunity act conferred. Article 16 not apply to
5:11:08 > 5:11:16the employment context. The charter under Article 47 which guaranteed an
5:11:16 > 5:11:21effective remedy and a fair hearing in circumstances covered by the
5:11:21 > 5:11:28scope of European Union law allowed that lady to argue that part of that
5:11:28 > 5:11:40statute should be set aside. And so it was. Similarly in gaudy fowl --
5:11:40 > 5:11:48Gore Vidal in the data protection case, this house said that if you
5:11:48 > 5:11:53want to bring an action for damages, you must show that you actually
5:11:53 > 5:11:58suffered damage. That was set aside by the court on the basis that the
5:11:58 > 5:12:02directive contemplated not merely cases where you suffered damage but
5:12:02 > 5:12:08where you suffered distress. Now, that may or may not have been a
5:12:08 > 5:12:12matter for this house. Whether or not somebody should be able to sue
5:12:12 > 5:12:16the state or somebody else for damages because they suffered
5:12:16 > 5:12:23distress, or whether they should have proved that they suffered some
5:12:23 > 5:12:27form of pecuniary damage. That's a matter for this house. That's what I
5:12:27 > 5:12:33mean when I say that these matters are resolvable in numerous ways.
5:12:33 > 5:12:37Many others would disagree whether it wasn't a legitimate public policy
5:12:37 > 5:12:41judgment that we should restrict an action for the breach of the data
5:12:41 > 5:12:48perfection at two place cases where actual damage was discovered or
5:12:48 > 5:12:54where distress was enough. Why should that not be resolved by this
5:12:54 > 5:13:04house? That is part of the reason why some of this voted to leave the
5:13:04 > 5:13:08European Union in the first place. Because we believe that those were
5:13:08 > 5:13:16decisions that needed to be taken here not by courts and not on the
5:13:16 > 5:13:23imposition of a law of which we had a majority say over this kind of
5:13:23 > 5:13:30question. No I won't! I want to develop what I hope is a coherent
5:13:30 > 5:13:35argument. What I was addressing was this question of whether or not
5:13:35 > 5:13:42there is a conflict between the human rights order and a disharmony
5:13:42 > 5:13:46that is imposed by the convention and that which might be imposed by
5:13:46 > 5:13:50the incorporation of the charter. Where I think there could be a real
5:13:50 > 5:13:57problem is this. There will be cases in the broad and expansive
5:13:57 > 5:14:01definition of the scope of the European Union law which is when the
5:14:01 > 5:14:06charter applies when it comes within the scope of European Union law,
5:14:06 > 5:14:14where a moral dilemma may be faced by a court, and where they will be
5:14:14 > 5:14:18asked to do supply an act of Parliament because the supremacy
5:14:18 > 5:14:22principle is retained as my right honourable and learn it friend for
5:14:22 > 5:14:29Beaconsfield has observed, is retained by the act. In a case where
5:14:29 > 5:14:35the charter covers it, in a case where such a dilemma as risen, the
5:14:35 > 5:14:46act will be set aside because of these cases and because if the
5:14:46 > 5:14:49charter is incorporated its vague and general statement of the Bill of
5:14:49 > 5:14:54Rights will have binding force and so it will be set aside. If I bring
5:14:54 > 5:14:58a case under the Convention and I say that this act should be set
5:14:58 > 5:15:02aside because I have suffered in human and degrading punishment for
5:15:02 > 5:15:07some of the worst violations of human rights that could ever be
5:15:07 > 5:15:13conceived by a state, I will not be able to have the act of Parliament
5:15:13 > 5:15:21set aside. That introduces absurdity into our law. You can torture
5:15:21 > 5:15:25somebody and not have the act of Parliament that licenses it set
5:15:25 > 5:15:30aside but I can't have my workplace rights infringed and then I can have
5:15:30 > 5:15:37the whole act of Parliament and an of statutory apparatus. It makes no
5:15:37 > 5:15:42sense and will bring our law into disrepute if for very long we
5:15:42 > 5:15:46tolerate a situation where in some cases where a moral dilemma is faced
5:15:46 > 5:15:50by a court and under a general statement of human rights it is
5:15:50 > 5:15:54brought under to get it in that court, they can set aside acts of
5:15:54 > 5:16:00this house and in other cases, they cannot. Even when it involves the
5:16:00 > 5:16:06most serious violations of human rights that you can imagine. Now, I
5:16:06 > 5:16:11say, everybody except that what this bill legislates for is an
5:16:11 > 5:16:15unsatisfactory situation. We can all agree with that. My friends on this
5:16:15 > 5:16:19side of the house with whom I have more in common than divides us, even
5:16:19 > 5:16:26though we have been on different sides of the debate of this question
5:16:26 > 5:16:30belonged to the European Union, we can all agree on some fundamental
5:16:30 > 5:16:36things. It cannot be right that for very long we go on with a body of
5:16:36 > 5:16:40law in our overall legal order that permits and allows higher and
5:16:40 > 5:16:46special and better rights than in circumstances where this law will
5:16:46 > 5:16:51not apply. So, I would say that incorporating the charter would
5:16:51 > 5:16:57exacerbate that problem. And the protection of the rights that the
5:16:57 > 5:17:02honourable members opposite have rightly identify as worthy of
5:17:02 > 5:17:05protection can be accomplished by a different means. Data protection,
5:17:05 > 5:17:13for example. The honourable member opposite who spoke so well on data
5:17:13 > 5:17:18protection absolutely right that we need to make certain that our data
5:17:18 > 5:17:25protection laws are no less important than those we find on the
5:17:25 > 5:17:29continent but we do not need to do it by incorporating a general
5:17:29 > 5:17:37statement of a right and leaving it to the courts to enforce.
5:17:37 > 5:17:41I disagree with him about the effect of article eight of the convention
5:17:41 > 5:17:45which does cover data protection and even the European Council of
5:17:45 > 5:17:49European Council Convention 108 to which we are signatories and the
5:17:49 > 5:17:56directive itself out of the convention as an underpinning source
5:17:56 > 5:18:01of protection of privacy rights in the detail field. But if we approach
5:18:01 > 5:18:05it in the manner in which the Government suggests and if it is
5:18:05 > 5:18:11approached, and let me say to the members opposite, I concede
5:18:11 > 5:18:13completed this requires collaboration and cooperation in an
5:18:13 > 5:18:17honest and transparent spurred by the front bench of this party, let's
5:18:17 > 5:18:23work together to make sure that these rights are protected, but we
5:18:23 > 5:18:28do not need a broad, general and vague statement of rights
5:18:28 > 5:18:33incorporated into our law that will produce anomalies in, law in a
5:18:33 > 5:18:40fashion that will not do it credit by the incorporation of the Charter.
5:18:40 > 5:18:47So, but I would finally conclude by saying, if I may, is that we are in
5:18:47 > 5:18:52a position where we face a political choice and I would urge those
5:18:52 > 5:18:59members on my side to reflect and provided these rights are protected
5:18:59 > 5:19:03is does not matter the means by which they are done and General
5:19:03 > 5:19:09stakes of human rights are not necessarily consistent with the
5:19:09 > 5:19:14common law tradition. May I remind the front bench opposite that when
5:19:14 > 5:19:20the Human Rights Act was created by their government and a single
5:19:20 > 5:19:25achievement of their government that was, they deliberately left out
5:19:25 > 5:19:34Article 13 of the Convention which required an effective remedy.
5:19:34 > 5:19:37Article 13 of the Convention required an effective remedy. They
5:19:37 > 5:19:41did that for a very good reason, because the curve for constitutional
5:19:41 > 5:19:50balance of the Human Rights Act meant they wanted to avoid courts
5:19:50 > 5:19:56deciding that under the influence of the European Court of Human Rights
5:19:56 > 5:20:01they would have to lean towards striking down acts of Parliament. It
5:20:01 > 5:20:05was a possibility in that time and in New Zealand under their Bill of
5:20:05 > 5:20:08Rights the courts were moving towards believing that they were
5:20:08 > 5:20:16obliged to strike down Acts of their parliament. So by leaving out
5:20:16 > 5:20:22article 13 there was no risk of that but Article 47 puts it back. It
5:20:22 > 5:20:27allows you to suffocation of statutes of this House. There was a
5:20:27 > 5:20:30good reason why the Labour government of Dave thought that was
5:20:30 > 5:20:41an improvement and a good reason to date.I think in forgiving way
5:20:41 > 5:20:46because he made a very passionate and highly informed speech and he
5:20:46 > 5:20:50explained so much about the basis of law and the merits of the common law
5:20:50 > 5:20:54system. Surely the point that he didn't address was that this Bill
5:20:54 > 5:21:00enshrines EU law into domestic British law and therefore it doesn't
5:21:00 > 5:21:05make sense not to incorporate the charter. That is the contradiction
5:21:05 > 5:21:14but concerns many.It does because all it does is restore us to
5:21:14 > 5:21:18position pre-2009 in the European Union. The general principles. I.
5:21:18 > 5:21:23There is no inconsistency by allowing the general principles to
5:21:23 > 5:21:29apply subject to amendments, I am be the because I have some sympathy
5:21:29 > 5:21:36with my honourable friend is, I say the front bench, but in relation to
5:21:36 > 5:21:40the charter I am convinced it would be wrong, unwise and as a member of
5:21:40 > 5:21:44policy I urge my right honourable friend 's and members opposite not
5:21:44 > 5:21:58to vote for it.I rise in this debate of something is a rarity as a
5:21:58 > 5:22:05nonroyal participant. -- nonroyal. I will treat and keep my comments to
5:22:05 > 5:22:12the allotted time of between ten and 12 minutes. I would like to form the
5:22:12 > 5:22:15compelling and intelligent case made by the honourable member for East
5:22:15 > 5:22:22Ham and I am delighted to speak in support of his amendment one 51.
5:22:22 > 5:22:24Highlighting particularly the consequences facing millions of
5:22:24 > 5:22:29British citizens and thousands of companies if the UK's data
5:22:29 > 5:22:35protection legislation cannot be reconciled with EU law. If Clause
5:22:35 > 5:22:40five is passed unamended and should the UK cash out of the EU on March
5:22:40 > 5:22:44the 29th 2019 without a deal, I feared the UK will find itself
5:22:44 > 5:22:47noncompliant with EU law and the charter of fundamental rights and
5:22:47 > 5:22:52therefore the framework that affords us the encumbered free thought that
5:22:52 > 5:22:57that not just within the European Union but with other six Nations
5:22:57 > 5:23:02which EU has a deal with including the United States will immediately
5:23:02 > 5:23:07be under threat. The consequences for business and individuals who
5:23:07 > 5:23:11provide every single day on that free flow of data across
5:23:11 > 5:23:15international boundaries safely without delay, cost, detriment are
5:23:15 > 5:23:21absolutely essential and it is unthinkable that it should happen.
5:23:21 > 5:23:25As a software Alliance said in their recent report the benefits of
5:23:25 > 5:23:29cross-border that the transfers are vital not only for technology sector
5:23:29 > 5:23:35but also financial services, manufacturing, retail, health care,
5:23:35 > 5:23:40energy and most other sectors. The gutter protection Bill impact
5:23:40 > 5:23:45assessment that was published last month recognised the huge economic
5:23:45 > 5:23:49importance of the UK being able to guarantee effective unrestricted
5:23:49 > 5:23:55data-flow. Predicted that being in the forefront of data innovation
5:23:55 > 5:24:02should benefit the UK economy by up to £240 billion by 2020. But despite
5:24:02 > 5:24:06the warnings of businesses and their own impact assessment the Government
5:24:06 > 5:24:10by implementing classes five and six of this Bill seems determined to
5:24:10 > 5:24:14make the UK some kind of digital island cut off from the rest of the
5:24:14 > 5:24:20global and digital economy. One would have thought that time where
5:24:20 > 5:24:26there are so many bridges of data and so many cyber attacks that
5:24:26 > 5:24:28ongoing data cooperation with European partners and others is not
5:24:28 > 5:24:35just desirable but absolutely essential. If creating a digital
5:24:35 > 5:24:41island is not the aim of the UK Government and is not their
5:24:41 > 5:24:46intention well I suggest very strongly that it makes securing a
5:24:46 > 5:24:49workable and compliant data protection deal with the European
5:24:49 > 5:24:53Union one of its main priorities. It is simply not enough for the
5:24:53 > 5:24:57Government to assume that we will attain the status of adequacy by
5:24:57 > 5:25:02default. This somehow because we will have implemented a general data
5:25:02 > 5:25:07protection regulations that come what may the minutes are clearly the
5:25:07 > 5:25:10European Union the data protection laws will also automatically be
5:25:10 > 5:25:14harmonised with the European Union will stop that are simply not the
5:25:14 > 5:25:18case. As we approach from the honourable member for Nottingham
5:25:18 > 5:25:21East and East Ham and others the European Court of Justice has
5:25:21 > 5:25:26already yield that both the Watson case is that the planting of GDP are
5:25:26 > 5:25:32simply isn't enough to automatically secure and adequacy by default
5:25:32 > 5:25:36agreement from the European Union. So the only avenue I can see for the
5:25:36 > 5:25:41Government to achieve this adequacy by default a to desire is for them
5:25:41 > 5:25:46to secure a deal with the European Union before we leave, one that
5:25:46 > 5:25:50complies with European law. To do that we would require a transitional
5:25:50 > 5:25:53period of which we would be able to negotiate a deal of remaining inside
5:25:53 > 5:25:58the single market, customs union and under the jurisdiction of the
5:25:58 > 5:26:02European Court of Justice. That is one way a pity the Government could
5:26:02 > 5:26:08find the time to negotiate this adequacy by default status. The
5:26:08 > 5:26:10other and more straightforward option would be for the Government
5:26:10 > 5:26:16to commit to the UK remaining inside the single market and customs union
5:26:16 > 5:26:21and under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, given that no one in the United
5:26:21 > 5:26:30Kingdom was ever asked to leave the market. But let's be clear, the
5:26:30 > 5:26:33consequences of the UK crashing out of the EU with the deal will be
5:26:33 > 5:26:37absolutely catastrophic particularly for those purposes in the
5:26:37 > 5:26:41telecommunications and financial sectors who are heavily reliant, if
5:26:41 > 5:26:45not almost entirely dependent on the unrestricted free flow of data. The
5:26:45 > 5:26:51honourable member for East Ham went into some detail to store important
5:26:51 > 5:26:57data is to the UK economy and the decade to 2015 the amount of
5:26:57 > 5:27:02cross-border data-flow increased 28 fold in the UK and currently those
5:27:02 > 5:27:07digital and data intensive sectors of the economy account for 16% of UK
5:27:07 > 5:27:12output and 24% of the total exports. But as the clock ticks down to
5:27:12 > 5:27:16Brexit, I know that those businesses who rely on that free flow of data
5:27:16 > 5:27:21are being increasingly concerned because they need to know now what
5:27:21 > 5:27:24is happening and they cannot plan for the future simply on a vague
5:27:24 > 5:27:28government promised that somehow it'll be all right on the night
5:27:28 > 5:27:34because businesses don't have guarantees well ahead of Brexit
5:27:34 > 5:27:39about exactly what is happening, I fear they will vote with their feet
5:27:39 > 5:27:42and it will leave very much like the European medical agency who
5:27:42 > 5:27:47announced just last night that it was moving 900 high-tech jobs,
5:27:47 > 5:27:51high-value jobs from London to Amsterdam. Business cannot afford
5:27:51 > 5:27:55the risk of finding themselves outside the EU data protection area.
5:27:55 > 5:28:00They cannot and they will not wait until the last minute to find out
5:28:00 > 5:28:04what is happening. It is not commercially viable, contracts would
5:28:04 > 5:28:07have to be rewritten and deals free negotiated and things like that do
5:28:07 > 5:28:16not happen overnight. My fear that there is no agreement issues such as
5:28:16 > 5:28:18fundamental as data protection than many large high net worth companies
5:28:18 > 5:28:23who provide high-value jobs begin this sick the stability they need
5:28:23 > 5:28:32outside the UK. As I alluded to earlier I do seriously question if
5:28:32 > 5:28:36the maintaining of a frictionless cross-border data-flow is currently
5:28:36 > 5:28:39attracting sufficient attention of the Government and their Brexit
5:28:39 > 5:28:43negotiations. My alarm bells began ringing a number of weeks ago when
5:28:43 > 5:28:47the red honourable member for West Suffolk, the most of the said at the
5:28:47 > 5:28:53CMS told this has the Government work, and I could, seeking something
5:28:53 > 5:28:56akin to an adequacy agreement. I have absolutely no idea what he
5:28:56 > 5:29:02meant then and I have no closer to understanding what he means now.
5:29:02 > 5:29:05Because something akin it to an adequacy agreement simply does not
5:29:05 > 5:29:12exist. An adequacy agreement is a formal legal position and it isn't
5:29:12 > 5:29:17something that can be bent, moulded or done as a quick fix to get a
5:29:17 > 5:29:21country or a minister out of a sticky situation. As a leading data
5:29:21 > 5:29:25protection lawyer Rosemary Jay said the bird adequacy agreement is the
5:29:25 > 5:29:30EU has to go through the legislative process and it is not in their gift
5:29:30 > 5:29:37to do this in an informal way. EU law is very clear. An adequacy
5:29:37 > 5:29:43discos and can only be given to a third country. That is a country
5:29:43 > 5:29:46currently outside the EE you with the EEA to allow it to operate
5:29:46 > 5:29:52securely or freely within the framework of the GDP eye. It can
5:29:52 > 5:29:57only be given to a third country, one which meets the European Union's
5:29:57 > 5:30:00high standards of data protection and whose domestic legislation is
5:30:00 > 5:30:04deemed compatible with the European's Charter of fundamental
5:30:04 > 5:30:10rights. The most obvious difficulty is an adequacy decision is designed
5:30:10 > 5:30:14for third countries and the UK is not yet a third country and it won't
5:30:14 > 5:30:19be a third country until the very end of the Brexit process. But there
5:30:19 > 5:30:24is a whole that more that has to be considered. Because without
5:30:24 > 5:30:27negotiating and securing a deal before the UK leads the EU I cannot
5:30:27 > 5:30:36see how the UK can qualify for any adequacy agreement whether by
5:30:36 > 5:30:39default or otherwise because even if the Prime Minister does secure the
5:30:39 > 5:30:42traditional period and is given time to get the UK's problem sorted
5:30:42 > 5:30:47around adequacy it is still no guarantee that adequacy by default
5:30:47 > 5:30:54will be achieved. At this because I had of granting an adequacy decision
5:30:54 > 5:30:58to a third country the European condition is obliged to consider a
5:30:58 > 5:31:02variety of dishes such as the rule of law, respect for human rights,
5:31:02 > 5:31:06legislation on national security, public security and criminal law,
5:31:06 > 5:31:09which means that any deal become too with the EU is going to have to
5:31:09 > 5:31:15require at least a complete reworking and at best a complete
5:31:15 > 5:31:19ditching of the UK's current investigatory Powers act, which in
5:31:19 > 5:31:24its present form leads the UK incompatible with EU Charter of
5:31:24 > 5:31:27fundamental rights, a charter which we have heard often includes a
5:31:27 > 5:31:32chapter on the fundamental rights to that of protection. On that basis
5:31:32 > 5:31:36alone I am almost certain that the investigatory Powers act which has
5:31:36 > 5:31:42already been accused of violating EU fundamental rights will see C: to
5:31:42 > 5:31:48question the UK's ability to receive a positive adequacy decision. As a
5:31:48 > 5:31:51respected and internationally recognised expert on data protection
5:31:51 > 5:31:57said, would the UK needs to do is convince the commission and perhaps
5:31:57 > 5:32:01one day the European Court of Justice at the investigatory Powers
5:32:01 > 5:32:04act is compatible with the fundamental rights that is a tall
5:32:04 > 5:32:10order. So would the Government understandably desperate to secure
5:32:10 > 5:32:17an decision on adequacy, the harsh reality is at the very least a
5:32:17 > 5:32:21lengthily and challenging legal process will almost certainly --
5:32:21 > 5:32:24certainly be undertaken before that happens and the site it is essential
5:32:24 > 5:32:27that in first place government secures this transitional period,
5:32:27 > 5:32:33that will keep the European -- the UK in the single market, customs
5:32:33 > 5:32:37union and the European Court of Justice jurisdiction. We have to
5:32:37 > 5:32:43redraft that investigatory Powers act to make it compliant with the
5:32:43 > 5:32:49Charter of fundamental rights and if that is even possible given the IPA
5:32:49 > 5:32:55in its current form. Should that not happen we will crush out of the
5:32:55 > 5:32:58European Union without a data protection deal, but the devastating
5:32:58 > 5:33:06consequences that will have for individuals and businesses.
5:33:06 > 5:33:09Despite the stated desire to secure an adequacy agreement that will
5:33:09 > 5:33:17retain the UK store statement as a safe recipient of data, I fear that
5:33:17 > 5:33:21the government was mad lack of action in preparing the ground
5:33:21 > 5:33:27properly to secure that agreement by default or otherwise following
5:33:27 > 5:33:31negotiations is causing great concern to businesses who rely
5:33:31 > 5:33:35heavily on the flow of data and I urge the government to accept
5:33:35 > 5:33:46amendment 450 one.I have had occasion before now to consider
5:33:46 > 5:33:52deeply the whole matter of rights and human rights when I drafted,
5:33:52 > 5:33:57tabled, and had debated in this place, a British Bill of Rights.
5:33:57 > 5:34:01They said to me, it couldn't be done, it was an impossible project
5:34:01 > 5:34:06but with the help and counsel of many honourable and learn it
5:34:06 > 5:34:13friends, not least the Leonid friend from storage and West Devon who
5:34:13 > 5:34:19spoke with such vigour just now, I was able to construct a Bill of
5:34:19 > 5:34:23Rights to this house. That matters and is relevant to this debate
5:34:23 > 5:34:29because there were three really key factors. The first was, what are the
5:34:29 > 5:34:34rights, the second is, how do you interpret them. The third is, which
5:34:34 > 5:34:38is the court that should decide on those rights. Taking the first
5:34:38 > 5:34:46question, what are the rights, some are so basic so self-evident that
5:34:46 > 5:34:51they are not even rights, they are values. They go to the heart of our
5:34:51 > 5:34:55Constitution and what we believe in as a country, what we are about, our
5:34:55 > 5:35:02way of life. Basic stuff, the rule of law, the right to a fair hearing,
5:35:02 > 5:35:07the presumption of innocence, natural justice. Those are the
5:35:07 > 5:35:11fundamental values of what we are about as a nation and what we hold
5:35:11 > 5:35:15to be self-evident and true. When they are trampled upon there is
5:35:15 > 5:35:18uproar in this place and across the country because we know in our
5:35:18 > 5:35:24hearts that we know those are values that we hold dear. Then there are
5:35:24 > 5:35:29rights, in the Human Rights Act, that we also hold to be self-evident
5:35:29 > 5:35:34and true. Second Amendment act is in America, they call them. The right
5:35:34 > 5:35:39to free press, freedom of speech, religion, the determination of
5:35:39 > 5:35:44religion and the right to Association. Those are also very
5:35:44 > 5:35:48important rights that go to the heart of what we are about that we
5:35:48 > 5:35:54call values. Then there are rights that we set out and many are set out
5:35:54 > 5:35:59in the European Convention on Human Rights that have been built, mainly
5:35:59 > 5:36:04in our own Constitution and history. They did not just begin in 1998,
5:36:04 > 5:36:08they are rights that we have taken to be self-evident for many years
5:36:08 > 5:36:13and they find their way into the Human Rights Act and the human
5:36:13 > 5:36:20rights code, a document which is very hard to object to. Then you
5:36:20 > 5:36:26come to the issue of interpretation. That is where problems begin. If you
5:36:26 > 5:36:33look at how these European human rights court interprets it, they
5:36:33 > 5:36:39take an objective look. Do you have a right to family life, yes or no?
5:36:39 > 5:36:47Then you can't be extradited. We take a more subjective view. We look
5:36:47 > 5:36:52at all fax in the circumstances of the case. We say, should you be able
5:36:52 > 5:36:56to stand on that right to family life given your own conduct if you
5:36:56 > 5:37:03have committed a crime. We would say you should not be able to stand on
5:37:03 > 5:37:05that right because in the circumstances of your conduct means
5:37:05 > 5:37:10that you should not be allowed ethically and inequity to stand up
5:37:10 > 5:37:14on that right. That is where the British people were in so many of
5:37:14 > 5:37:18these extradition cases. They thought European rights were all
5:37:18 > 5:37:23wrong. If not necessarily wrong, the interpretation doesn't sit well with
5:37:23 > 5:37:30our own values, our own interpretation as to how we address
5:37:30 > 5:37:36the principles of law. Then the third question, what is a proper
5:37:36 > 5:37:42court? In my British Bill of Rights, I made sure there was a clause that
5:37:42 > 5:37:47in all fax and circumstances of the case, giving a wide discretion to
5:37:47 > 5:37:52judges to give a decision, and the second the court should be the
5:37:52 > 5:37:58Supreme Court. To me, it was about making the Supreme Court supreme. I
5:37:58 > 5:38:02did not see why there should be a European Court of Justice when it
5:38:02 > 5:38:08came as to our rights as a nation. Our own Supreme Court is very
5:38:08 > 5:38:11effective and able to determine those things. When it comes to the
5:38:11 > 5:38:16constructing of rights, I agree with the member for Tory jammed West
5:38:16 > 5:38:22Devon, it should be this house. The interpretation should be in line
5:38:22 > 5:38:29with our own way of interpretation as a nation and I believe it should
5:38:29 > 5:38:34be the Supreme Court that is supreme. When one turns to the
5:38:34 > 5:38:40charter of fundamental rights, I would not reject this out of hand.
5:38:40 > 5:38:45There are rights that make no sense here. The right to petition the
5:38:45 > 5:38:49European Parliament. If we are leaving, why would we want to
5:38:49 > 5:38:53petition the European Parliament? It makes no sense. The right to free
5:38:53 > 5:39:00movement, that is for others as a nation state to determine when we
5:39:00 > 5:39:04leave the European Union. It makes no sense to have those rights in the
5:39:04 > 5:39:13charter. There are rights in this charter that are frankly rights
5:39:13 > 5:39:21which are similar or draw on the European Court of Human Rights. The
5:39:21 > 5:39:25new do duplication. Not necessary. There is an intermediate set of
5:39:25 > 5:39:30rights that I do think that this house should consider, if we are
5:39:30 > 5:39:33going to take back control, we should ask ourselves the question,
5:39:33 > 5:39:39is it right that there are rights in here should be brought into our own
5:39:39 > 5:39:43system of law. It may not be one for this bill but it is one that we
5:39:43 > 5:39:51should definitely consider.As we are transposing the whole of EU law
5:39:51 > 5:39:55in effect, all regulation, things to do with bendy bananas and things
5:39:55 > 5:40:01that people have complained about four years, regulation of electrical
5:40:01 > 5:40:06items, consumer elections, doesn't it make sense when we bring all
5:40:06 > 5:40:12those things is to look at this third category of rights?I agree.
5:40:12 > 5:40:18Whether we do it in this bill all whether we do it wider, it is
5:40:18 > 5:40:23something the house should consider. Where is the balance to be struck on
5:40:23 > 5:40:27Article eight, the protection of personal data? My view is that I
5:40:27 > 5:40:34should decide what happens to my data. It is my data, it's me. Not to
5:40:34 > 5:40:39have government say, it belongs to the government or big business. This
5:40:39 > 5:40:44is a debate we should have. It's a debate we should have as a country,
5:40:44 > 5:40:48whether or not within this Parliament, this bill is properly
5:40:48 > 5:40:53not the right mechanism for it but it is an area we need to consider as
5:40:53 > 5:41:00to where the balance should lie. Then there is article 41, the right
5:41:00 > 5:41:05to good administration. The Minister will say, of course we administer
5:41:05 > 5:41:10correctly. We are honourable men. So are they all. But it's important
5:41:10 > 5:41:19that we do have as a matter of principle a bright to have affairs
5:41:19 > 5:41:24handled impartially, fairly, within a reasonable time by institutions,
5:41:24 > 5:41:28bodies, and agencies. The right of every person to be heard before any
5:41:28 > 5:41:37individual measure that affects them adversely takes lace. It seems to be
5:41:37 > 5:41:41self-evident that we should have these things written into our codes.
5:41:41 > 5:41:47If they are not already. The right of every person to have access to
5:41:47 > 5:41:52his or her file while respecting legitimate interests, to give reason
5:41:52 > 5:41:57for decisions. These are self-evident and basic of what we
5:41:57 > 5:42:02should be about. These are rights that are not written into our system
5:42:02 > 5:42:06fully and properly but I think there is a strong case that they should
5:42:06 > 5:42:13be. Myself I've had reason to ponder these matters more deeply of late
5:42:13 > 5:42:18and I think it is something that we should consider, to make sure that
5:42:18 > 5:42:23in our system, our way of life, in the values that we hold dear, that
5:42:23 > 5:42:27we execute them properly and take back control in this house and make
5:42:27 > 5:42:33sure the rule of law should apply to every person in this country, the
5:42:33 > 5:42:36role of executive action should apply to every person in this nation
5:42:36 > 5:42:40and we strike the right balance as we take one with great
5:42:40 > 5:42:46responsibility restoring sovereignty to our suffering Parliament. --
5:42:46 > 5:42:56sovereign.I voted against this bill at second reading because of the
5:42:56 > 5:43:00powers it puts in the hands of ministers and sidelines Parliament
5:43:00 > 5:43:08in many of its incorporation moments. We've had some speeches
5:43:08 > 5:43:13from honourable people on the other side waxing lyrical about putting
5:43:13 > 5:43:18things in the hands of the sovereign parliament. The part of this bill is
5:43:18 > 5:43:22to put power in the hands of ministers to enact almost any law
5:43:22 > 5:43:27that they like or to strike out any law that they like. That is a point
5:43:27 > 5:43:32that has been missed in this debate. I'm not a legal expert. I'm not a
5:43:32 > 5:43:39barrister. I don't have a law degree, what I have is six months, a
5:43:39 > 5:43:44semester at LSE, as part of my masters in European studies, one of
5:43:44 > 5:43:52my semesters was government law and policy. I got a massive book which
5:43:52 > 5:43:56is still on my shelf and as I was reading through the Bill I looked at
5:43:56 > 5:44:01the book and it rang a Dell in the reptilian core of my brain. I
5:44:01 > 5:44:08thought that's one of the important cases I've read about. That Masters
5:44:08 > 5:44:12was the best money I ever spent. As this bill goes through the house.
5:44:12 > 5:44:20Franco Vidic is one of the areas the government breaks its promise to cut
5:44:20 > 5:44:26and paste the whole body of EU law into UK law. Schedule one is it gets
5:44:26 > 5:44:32out of jail free card. These are things we don't like and we're not
5:44:32 > 5:44:37going to incorporate. There are lots of words around why, it's too
5:44:37 > 5:44:41difficult, judges will be confused, everyone will get themselves in a
5:44:41 > 5:44:46twist, but actually what it is is a rights grab and I think this must
5:44:46 > 5:44:51not be able to stand. We must not allow the government's schedule one,
5:44:51 > 5:44:56which is a list of the ways in which the government is curtailing legal
5:44:56 > 5:45:04rights and remedies that we have enjoyed as a result of our
5:45:04 > 5:45:07membership of the U, some of those did not exist when we join, they
5:45:07 > 5:45:11have evolved through time through ECJ jurisprudence and the treaties.
5:45:11 > 5:45:15For the last 25 years we have enjoyed the right to compensation
5:45:15 > 5:45:21from the state when the government fails correctly to implement EU law
5:45:21 > 5:45:26and an individual suffers a serious loss as a result. That's back to my
5:45:26 > 5:45:33big green textbook. This was established after a man took his
5:45:33 > 5:45:39government to court. He worked for an electronic company and was paid
5:45:39 > 5:45:43only sporadically and when his company went bust, he was owed a
5:45:43 > 5:45:49full is to workers are given the right to pay when their company goes
5:45:49 > 5:45:57bust. Italy had failed to implement the insolvency directive and in
5:45:57 > 5:46:001991, the European Court of Justice ruled that the Italian government
5:46:00 > 5:46:07must make good the pay owed to the man and his colleagues. Since that
5:46:07 > 5:46:19time, if an EU member state has failed to make its obligations, it
5:46:19 > 5:46:28must compensate. Relatively fresh EU case law. How did it apply in the
5:46:28 > 5:46:38UK? There is a particularly sad case that anyone could have had as MPs in
5:46:38 > 5:46:43our constituency surgeries. The case of Ben Byrne. The second motor
5:46:43 > 5:46:45insurance directive required member states to have compensation
5:46:45 > 5:46:50arrangements for victims of an traced drivers and that protection
5:46:50 > 5:46:55must be equivalent to that available for insured drivers whose identities
5:46:55 > 5:47:01are known. In 1993, the then three old Ben Byrne was hit by a car while
5:47:01 > 5:47:05crossing the road with his father. The driver sped off and was never
5:47:05 > 5:47:09found. Then post my parents were not aware of his right to claim
5:47:09 > 5:47:15compensation until eight years after the action. These are the sort of
5:47:15 > 5:47:19difficult not to cases that we get in our surgeries, people are unaware
5:47:19 > 5:47:24of their remedies under the law. There will be many others who have
5:47:24 > 5:47:28held the hands of constituents in terrible cases to ensure they get
5:47:28 > 5:47:33justice. Have the driver's identity be known, and would have been able
5:47:33 > 5:47:38to bring about a personal injury claim because the clock does not
5:47:38 > 5:47:42start ticking against the mine with a personal injury claim until they
5:47:42 > 5:47:48reach the age of majority. Under the UK's arrangements for victims of an
5:47:48 > 5:47:52traced drivers, Ben was not entitled to compensation since more than
5:47:52 > 5:47:56three years had passed following the accident. At the tender age of 60
5:47:56 > 5:47:59were supposed to know his full rights under the law to have made a
5:47:59 > 5:48:04claim. Then's parents and Ben successfully claimed damages from
5:48:04 > 5:48:09the government using this rule to argue that the Transport Secretary
5:48:09 > 5:48:15had failed to implement the EU second motor insurance directive. So
5:48:15 > 5:48:21it's crucial for getting the compensation desert. The case is
5:48:21 > 5:48:25important because it shows that the remedies and the knowledge of the
5:48:25 > 5:48:27breach can often occur only many years after the breaches have
5:48:27 > 5:48:31occurred.
5:48:31 > 5:48:35At the moment he depends on the European Court of Justice deciding
5:48:35 > 5:48:42the bridge of the law is sufficiently serious, rights have
5:48:42 > 5:48:47been infringed and there hasn't been a loss, so there is a triple lock
5:48:47 > 5:48:51there, you cannot bring it in a frivolous fashion and it is not
5:48:51 > 5:48:57something you can clog up the system with, this depends on this triple
5:48:57 > 5:49:01lock and of course if Francovich was incorporated into UK law that rule
5:49:01 > 5:49:05could be taken on by the Supreme Court. There is nothing to stop the
5:49:05 > 5:49:12Supreme Court making that judgment. And of course I am delighted to see
5:49:12 > 5:49:15the Attorney General in his case because in his place, because the
5:49:15 > 5:49:22law officers are effectively saying they are happy with this Bill
5:49:22 > 5:49:23bringing down a guillotine on people's rights and people's
5:49:23 > 5:49:29remedies. And I would like to hear what they have to say about
5:49:29 > 5:49:33transitional cases, but have already started, making their way through
5:49:33 > 5:49:40the courts and what about this difficult issue raised in my
5:49:40 > 5:49:44amendment 139 where the circumstances that gave rise to the
5:49:44 > 5:49:48breach are taking place on exit date or have taken place, but people
5:49:48 > 5:49:53don't have that remedy going forward. I would be grateful if the
5:49:53 > 5:49:59Attorney General can explain why that is right. The trades union
5:49:59 > 5:50:03Congress has said workers may have no legal remedy in the future if the
5:50:03 > 5:50:09Government fails to protect their workplace rights, holiday pay, equal
5:50:09 > 5:50:16rights for part-time workers or agency staff, in May 2017 the
5:50:16 > 5:50:24European Council decision that looked at the negotiating paper,
5:50:24 > 5:50:35have the cancer was going to negotiate these issues, -- how the
5:50:35 > 5:50:44council, basically under part three, paragraph 35, C, in that negotiating
5:50:44 > 5:50:50paper it says that there needs to be ongoing judicial and administrative
5:50:50 > 5:50:56cases that are going through the ECJ could continue and that they will
5:50:56 > 5:50:59continue to have rules so it strikes me that this part of the Bill runs
5:50:59 > 5:51:10in direct contradiction to what to negotiating principles of the
5:51:10 > 5:51:14commission 's sake, so I am not a legal expert so if someone can
5:51:14 > 5:51:21explain it to me than please do. It is both a retrospective but also a
5:51:21 > 5:51:27prospective removal of rights, so it goes back -- backwards. It creates
5:51:27 > 5:51:33problems for our courts in terms of interpretation. I think it is a
5:51:33 > 5:51:37blatant example of the Government is seeking to avoid responsibility for
5:51:37 > 5:51:42past breaches of EU law and that is not the underlying purpose of the
5:51:42 > 5:51:46Bill, it is to copy and paste all our existing rights and remedies
5:51:46 > 5:51:55under the law into UK law. We have heard, I will give way.I think
5:51:55 > 5:51:57there is genuine concern across this House about this matter because it
5:51:57 > 5:52:05can be read and can't raise a claim on EU law, retrospectively, and
5:52:05 > 5:52:09there really is concerned and I hope the Government will look at this and
5:52:09 > 5:52:12give us, because I know the right honourable member and others on this
5:52:12 > 5:52:21site... Chesham and Amersham, she has already raised these problems so
5:52:21 > 5:52:25I hope the Government will come with the proposals to satisfy what to
5:52:25 > 5:52:30think right across the place.I think the honourable lady for the
5:52:30 > 5:52:35intervention and they think is often the simplest sentences raise the
5:52:35 > 5:52:40biggest alarm bells because things can be blinked and missed but there
5:52:40 > 5:52:45are substantial rights engaged in this. We have already heard from the
5:52:45 > 5:52:49deputy secretary in his speech to the UBS last week said the UK would
5:52:49 > 5:52:56remain in all the ego agencies joining the period of transition,
5:52:56 > 5:53:01which is a further problem because the transitional rights mentioned in
5:53:01 > 5:53:07the EU negotiating papers say the ECJ will continue to be able to
5:53:07 > 5:53:09decide presumably on Francovich during any transitional period. I
5:53:09 > 5:53:14know the transitional period as a mother of stretching the elastic
5:53:14 > 5:53:19limits of the Conservative Party at the moment and the Cabinet in terms
5:53:19 > 5:53:24of which wing of the party will succeed but from the point of view
5:53:24 > 5:53:28of economic stability and job stability in this country I
5:53:28 > 5:53:33certainly want to see a transitional period and this Bill raises
5:53:33 > 5:53:37questions about the loss of those rates. If there should be as we'll
5:53:37 > 5:53:44hope there will be a transitional period. And of course the problem is
5:53:44 > 5:53:47that those rates start to a road Exeter Day looms because the
5:53:47 > 5:53:52incentive to follow EU directives will be diminished with government
5:53:52 > 5:53:59because they will be let off the hook because there will be no
5:53:59 > 5:54:02retroactive right to sue under Francovich. For meat schedule one
5:54:02 > 5:54:09fails the basic test fairness. If the Government is in breach of let's
5:54:09 > 5:54:14say an air quality directive, perish the thought, and people suffer a
5:54:14 > 5:54:18substantial loss as a result, only those who start legal proceedings
5:54:18 > 5:54:22before exits date would be entitled to those damages, so my amendment
5:54:22 > 5:54:30139 would ensure that the right to sue the state and obtain a remedy
5:54:30 > 5:54:32under Francovich are still available for those who have suffered that
5:54:32 > 5:54:40loss or damage before the UK exits the EU and this would uphold the
5:54:40 > 5:54:43victims of government failure to uphold the rights which took place
5:54:43 > 5:54:46before exit to obtain those damages and it brings fairness to this
5:54:46 > 5:54:53process as well as crucially legal continuity and certainty. Brexit
5:54:53 > 5:54:58must not be used as an excuse to abolish citizens rights and
5:54:58 > 5:55:03protections under the law. My constituents in the referendum did
5:55:03 > 5:55:07not vote to reduce their rights and I certainly hope will be able to
5:55:07 > 5:55:14test this matter in the House this evening.I have to say aye have
5:55:14 > 5:55:20considerable sympathy with the points just made by the honourable
5:55:20 > 5:55:28member. I think it is quite a knotty issue, exactly at which point to
5:55:28 > 5:55:35create which cut off when we come to Francovich, but I think the idea by
5:55:35 > 5:55:40which people whose rights already exist and are damaged before exits
5:55:40 > 5:55:45should be prohibited from pursuing courses that they would have been
5:55:45 > 5:55:52able to pursue now, that they had the wit to start them now, is I
5:55:52 > 5:55:57think but it offensive to natural justice and I do hope the Treasury
5:55:57 > 5:56:03bench will come forward with some adjustment therefore to cause four
5:56:03 > 5:56:11of schedule. -- Clause four. I want to dwell on the issues that have
5:56:11 > 5:56:15been raised in the course of what has been a very interesting and I
5:56:15 > 5:56:20think much more of a genuine Committee Stage debate than some of
5:56:20 > 5:56:24the debates we have had in the previous two days. First one is this
5:56:24 > 5:56:30question of the Charter. Fundamental rights. I thought that the argument
5:56:30 > 5:56:36was largely being won by those who argued that it was not productive to
5:56:36 > 5:56:46have the general principles in those charter brought in to UK law,
5:56:46 > 5:56:52provided that we could satisfy ourselves that the case law and
5:56:52 > 5:57:00statute between them would cover off all of the material and substantive
5:57:00 > 5:57:03rights that it contained within the charter, and I was therefore
5:57:03 > 5:57:09extremely heartened to hear the Minister from the Ministry of
5:57:09 > 5:57:15Justice, saying there was going to be a full analysis which would, I
5:57:15 > 5:57:20hope, be sufficient to persuade us all but all the rides are covered
5:57:20 > 5:57:24off in some other way and if they are think the boys that were made
5:57:24 > 5:57:30about the dangers of judicial activism, which is positively
5:57:30 > 5:57:35invited by the Charter of fundamental rights, would outweigh
5:57:35 > 5:57:43any advantage in Corporation. Just before I move onto the main point I
5:57:43 > 5:57:51want make about schedule one, section three, I just want to
5:57:51 > 5:57:53observe there is a slight qualification to something things
5:57:53 > 5:57:59being said in the course of the Committee proceedings, but actually
5:57:59 > 5:58:03there will be an element of judicial activism, but only made possible but
5:58:03 > 5:58:10actually required by this legislation. Because it refers
5:58:10 > 5:58:16repeatedly to retain the principles and it is impossible for judges to
5:58:16 > 5:58:18engage in applying principles without engaging in judicial
5:58:18 > 5:58:22activism that goes beyond simply reading the plain face of statutes
5:58:22 > 5:58:30and the like. So, it is all a very grey area and it is with that in
5:58:30 > 5:58:34mind that I come to my right honourable friend from
5:58:34 > 5:58:42Beaconsfield's amendment ten and schedule 1.3 to it refers to 1.203,
5:58:42 > 5:58:52but in my view it mainly refers to schedule 1.3. And here we have a
5:58:52 > 5:58:57very great oddity at the moment in the way that the Bill is cast and I
5:58:57 > 5:59:00am hoping my honourable friend the Solicitor General will come to this
5:59:00 > 5:59:04dispatch box but too long from now and resolve this problem but I think
5:59:04 > 5:59:12it is important just to set out the nature of the problem. In Clause
5:59:12 > 5:59:18five .2 there is a very clear establishment of the principle of
5:59:18 > 5:59:28supremacy of EU law so far as we are dealing with the past. It spells it
5:59:28 > 5:59:31out in that it includes status application or pushing of any
5:59:31 > 5:59:35enactment or rule of law is that trade has any meaning Pastore made
5:59:35 > 5:59:44before exits day. Then we have Clause 6.3 which we have talked
5:59:44 > 5:59:49about on the previous day in which it is made entirely clear a least in
5:59:49 > 5:59:52relation to lower courts, by right honourable member friend still
5:59:52 > 5:59:57discussing with the Treasury bassinets question which would
5:59:57 > 6:00:02prefer clear that in relation to ordinary operation of ordinary
6:00:02 > 6:00:09course not only retain course book, but also retaining general
6:00:09 > 6:00:13principles of EU law to be applied by the courts. It is a very strange
6:00:13 > 6:00:18state of affairs therefore that when we come to schedule one we discover
6:00:18 > 6:00:25that no quarter tribunal can do the very things that the combination of
6:00:25 > 6:00:29five, two, and 6.3 require. They cannot apply the general principles
6:00:29 > 6:00:39of EU law to crush the supreme over any existing UK laws. You can have a
6:00:39 > 6:00:43Bill that says one thing or a Bill that says the opposite but you
6:00:43 > 6:00:46cannot properly have a Bill that says in one part of it one thing and
6:00:46 > 6:00:52another part the opposite also and therefore some changes required. But
6:00:52 > 6:00:59what I think is simply a matter of analytical fact. My own preference
6:00:59 > 6:01:02which I hope the Solicitor General is going to reflect on his remarks
6:01:02 > 6:01:07would be for a change of the kind which is, in various exchanges
6:01:07 > 6:01:14through the course of the afternoon. More modest than my right honourable
6:01:14 > 6:01:18friend from Beaconsfield's rather uncharacteristically complete
6:01:18 > 6:01:31agreement, sweeping, simply to amend schedule 1.32 in such a way as to
6:01:31 > 6:01:39ensure that it refers to general principles of EU law of those than
6:01:39 > 6:01:44retained principles. At that point it seems to me by Satie re-enters
6:01:44 > 6:01:50the scene because we then say that a court after exits taken not in the
6:01:50 > 6:02:01UK use later principles developed by the CJ EU, any charges or other
6:02:01 > 6:02:04documents produced with EU to overrule English stature which of
6:02:04 > 6:02:11course is a natural of proper consequence of leaving the EU.For
6:02:11 > 6:02:14the sick of the record they would be grateful if by right honourable
6:02:14 > 6:02:22friend -- sake. That he would also look at paragraph five which in
6:02:22 > 6:02:27terms does refer in terms of interpretation to schedule one as
6:02:27 > 6:02:35well which therefore I think can be completely left out.
6:02:35 > 6:02:41I was going to say that so I won't say it now. I agree with that. I
6:02:41 > 6:02:46hope the system will also tell is that schedule 131 will also be
6:02:46 > 6:02:50adjusted because we need the same sensible to apply to a private right
6:02:50 > 6:02:56of action as applies to the quashing of an enactment. Provided those
6:02:56 > 6:03:02changes are made, I have to say that I think the basic articulation of
6:03:02 > 6:03:09clause five and schedule one, unlike clause six, is in reasonably good
6:03:09 > 6:03:14shape and therefore I hope that as well as the very splendid offer of a
6:03:14 > 6:03:20full analysis of the rights, we will get from the front bench a very
6:03:20 > 6:03:24clear statement of what kind of amendments are going to be brought
6:03:24 > 6:03:27forward and a report on that would make me more than willing to support
6:03:27 > 6:03:37the government.I rise to speak in support of amendment 46 in the name
6:03:37 > 6:03:47of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Beaconsfield and the
6:03:47 > 6:03:55member for Nottingham East. This is the most purposeful and fit for
6:03:55 > 6:04:05purpose framework. It is broad-based and specific. While the Charter of
6:04:05 > 6:04:09fundamental rights draws together many principles that are found to be
6:04:09 > 6:04:13gather elsewhere and in case law it augments the legislation which
6:04:13 > 6:04:19predated it. In doing so, it provides additional rights which are
6:04:19 > 6:04:24not found anywhere else. It is not just simply an amalgam of
6:04:24 > 6:04:31legislation that exists elsewhere in UK law. The history of human rights
6:04:31 > 6:04:36legislation is cumulative, developed over centuries. Since the magna
6:04:36 > 6:04:38Karma, our understanding of the inalienable rights of human beings
6:04:38 > 6:04:44has been growing and evolving and legislation has been fought for in
6:04:44 > 6:04:52response. The Charter of rights is the clearest articulation we have
6:04:52 > 6:04:58the 21st century adherence to human rights. It was produced
6:04:58 > 6:05:03collaboratively by all EU states prior to the Lisbon Treaty and it is
6:05:03 > 6:05:08a clear statement of common humanity which underpins the respect we have
6:05:08 > 6:05:13for each other both within and across national borders. The Charter
6:05:13 > 6:05:18of fundamental rights is a deeply practical framework which UK
6:05:18 > 6:05:22citizens rely on for protection every day. Article one enshrines
6:05:22 > 6:05:28human dignity as a right. Few would disagree. The Charter is the only
6:05:28 > 6:05:33place in legislation that enshrines this right affording the most basic
6:05:33 > 6:05:40protection to people in receipt of social care or medical treatment in
6:05:40 > 6:05:43addition to many other circumstances. Article eight is a
6:05:43 > 6:05:47new 21st-century right which provides a foundation of principle
6:05:47 > 6:05:50for the development of further specific legislation to protect
6:05:50 > 6:06:00individuals and regulate the use of data. It has been used in making a
6:06:00 > 6:06:07case against the data and regulatory powers act, I hope others aren't
6:06:07 > 6:06:16denied this opportunity. Article 51 is of particular importance to LGBT
6:06:16 > 6:06:25people and protects people from discrimination on the basis of their
6:06:25 > 6:06:32sexual orientation adding a layer that goes beyond the equalities act
6:06:32 > 6:06:38and the Human Rights Act. Article 28, the right of collective
6:06:38 > 6:06:42bargaining and action establishes the right of workers and employers
6:06:42 > 6:06:48to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike
6:06:48 > 6:06:52action. Workers can rely on the Charter to challenge roles that
6:06:52 > 6:06:56breach fundamental rights, for example individuals working in the
6:06:56 > 6:07:02Sudanese embassy in the UK used the article to enforce employment rights
6:07:02 > 6:07:06in the UK courts. There are countless examples. Workers would
6:07:06 > 6:07:10lose such powers if the charter were not applied in the UK. The
6:07:10 > 6:07:17government has always shown its commitment to weakening workers'
6:07:17 > 6:07:21rights in the UK so I am afraid we have no confidence that the
6:07:21 > 6:07:25protection of such rights can be taken on trust for the future. Many
6:07:25 > 6:07:30other provisions are unique to the charter and without which human
6:07:30 > 6:07:34rights protections afforded to UK citizens will be weakened. The
6:07:34 > 6:07:39charter applies to EU law and the government says that the withdrawal
6:07:39 > 6:07:44bill places all EU law on to the UK statute book. If the government has
6:07:44 > 6:07:49its will and the charter is not part of domestic law after exit date, the
6:07:49 > 6:07:52important additional rights that it affords the British public will be
6:07:52 > 6:07:57lost. It is therefore simply not the case that this bill is the simple
6:07:57 > 6:08:03cut and paste job the government would have us believe it is.
6:08:03 > 6:08:08Stronger children's rights protections exist in the devolved
6:08:08 > 6:08:12nations and Wales ministers are obliged to pay due regard to
6:08:12 > 6:08:14children's rights is expressed in the UN Convention on the rights of
6:08:14 > 6:08:20the child while exercising any of their functions, unlike England. The
6:08:20 > 6:08:27bill as it stands will remove basic children rights safeguards and
6:08:27 > 6:08:31prevent devolved nations from upholding the prison arrangements
6:08:31 > 6:08:36and committing to children's rights in the future. -- the present
6:08:36 > 6:08:43arrangements.Another good example of the extension of rights afforded
6:08:43 > 6:08:52by the charter. I want to say about the views of my constituents. They
6:08:52 > 6:08:57voted overwhelmingly, more than 75% to remain in the EE. They did so for
6:08:57 > 6:09:02many reasons, some very practical and deeply principled but in all of
6:09:02 > 6:09:05the many conversations I've had with my constituents since the referendum
6:09:05 > 6:09:10the word they have used most often is values. My constituents voted to
6:09:10 > 6:09:15remain in the EU because it represents values of tolerance,
6:09:15 > 6:09:18diversity and internationalism and there is no clear articulation of
6:09:18 > 6:09:23these values than the Charter of fundamental rights. Many of my
6:09:23 > 6:09:26constituents are deeply distressed by the referendum result and have
6:09:26 > 6:09:33been looking to the government for comfort for a negotiated deal based
6:09:33 > 6:09:37on the values we share with the EU. Adopting the charter into UK law
6:09:37 > 6:09:42would send a strong signal about a continued basis of shared values
6:09:42 > 6:09:51with the EU and a commitment to a pulp the highest rights and the
6:09:51 > 6:09:56basis for a future trade deal with the EU. The government demonstrates
6:09:56 > 6:10:00once again that it has no commitment to high standards and the UK's
6:10:00 > 6:10:03relationship with the rest of the world risks being based on a race to
6:10:03 > 6:10:12the bottom with regard to protections for UK citizens.My
6:10:12 > 6:10:18constituents voted overwhelmingly by 67% to leave. I'm listening
6:10:18 > 6:10:22carefully to her speech but is she seriously suggesting that the main
6:10:22 > 6:10:27reason most of her 75% voted to remain was because of the Charter of
6:10:27 > 6:10:36fundamental rights?That is not my contention. My contention is that
6:10:36 > 6:10:43the charter is a very clear articulation of one of many reasons
6:10:43 > 6:10:47why my constituents voted overwhelmingly for remain and I seek
6:10:47 > 6:10:51to represent their views today as I'm sure he seeks to represent his
6:10:51 > 6:10:57constituents views in this important debate. As the most up-to-date
6:10:57 > 6:11:01framework from which UK citizens benefit, it is incompressible why
6:11:01 > 6:11:05the government should not want to commit to the same high standards as
6:11:05 > 6:11:14the basis for all human rights post Brexit. A basis to develop UK human
6:11:14 > 6:11:17rights law going forward. That they will not do so is revealing and
6:11:17 > 6:11:24deeply concerning. My constituents did not vote for Brexit on any
6:11:24 > 6:11:28terms. They seek reassurance from the government and they do not find
6:11:28 > 6:11:33it in this deeply flawed bill. It is essential that UK citizens can
6:11:33 > 6:11:38continue to rely on the highest standards post Brexit and I will
6:11:38 > 6:11:43continue to fight for this and I will vote for these amendments.It's
6:11:43 > 6:11:52a pleasure to followed the member for Dulwich and Norwood. Human
6:11:52 > 6:11:59rights law is a developing area. I don't agree with her that this
6:11:59 > 6:12:02government has any intention to try to undermine that developing area of
6:12:02 > 6:12:09law. It's clear, we heard a very interesting exposition of why this
6:12:09 > 6:12:15charter shouldn't be translated into UK law. I accept that there flaws
6:12:15 > 6:12:21with Amendment eight but I want to speak to it nonetheless. It is quite
6:12:21 > 6:12:26clear that there is this third category of rights that I believe
6:12:26 > 6:12:31the government has accepted and need some form of protection. And needs
6:12:31 > 6:12:37some form of incorporation. If that third category of rights is not
6:12:37 > 6:12:41already protected. We see the development of human rights law, it
6:12:41 > 6:12:47started out in the 1920s in effect with the Geneva conventions. Now,
6:12:47 > 6:12:55those conventions were signed by a limited number of countries and were
6:12:55 > 6:13:01basically the fundamental guarantees for citizens when the very, when all
6:13:01 > 6:13:06law and order has broken down and you are facing the worst
6:13:06 > 6:13:11circumstances of war and chaos. That is the true meaning of chaos, I
6:13:11 > 6:13:17would say to the member for Fareham. Those rights were guaranteed by the
6:13:17 > 6:13:22Geneva Convention. And the reality is that the law has moved on and it
6:13:22 > 6:13:27has changed and countries that were never signatories to those
6:13:27 > 6:13:33conventions are now subject to its requirements because they are the
6:13:33 > 6:13:39basis of the animal rights that should be guaranteed in any
6:13:39 > 6:13:46civilisation. Those that fail those rights get prosecuted under the
6:13:46 > 6:13:50international court of justice in the Hague and we will no doubt in
6:13:50 > 6:13:56the future sea actions on sera and other actions. -- sea actions on
6:13:56 > 6:14:13Syria. The rights contained in the charter are not in the Human Rights
6:14:13 > 6:14:22Act.The rights that are extra, the third section of rights in the
6:14:22 > 6:14:27charter seemed to me to be matters of social policy, on issues of
6:14:27 > 6:14:32health care and schooling. Those are things which should happen but they
6:14:32 > 6:14:37shouldn't be writes in a charter but batters of policy for a government
6:14:37 > 6:14:41to determine. That is where I take exception with her argument. This
6:14:41 > 6:14:49isn't really about rights as opposed to policy.I'm afraid the Walker
6:14:49 > 6:14:55case exactly demonstrates the opposite. There is somebody who was
6:14:55 > 6:14:59discriminated against because they were in a same-sex marriage and it
6:14:59 > 6:15:04is the charter rights that effectively guaranteed the partner's
6:15:04 > 6:15:09right to the pension. That wasn't a matter of social policy that was
6:15:09 > 6:15:16enforced because of the charter and it is why this debate is so
6:15:16 > 6:15:20incredibly important. There will potentially be some areas which are
6:15:20 > 6:15:27a matter of policy but that is why it is important for the government
6:15:27 > 6:15:31to go away and look at the amendments because serious points
6:15:31 > 6:15:35are being made in this debate that will affect people's everyday lives.
6:15:35 > 6:15:49And this is not some debate on principles that don't matter. These
6:15:49 > 6:15:51are really important fundamental issues that as a democracy we should
6:15:51 > 6:16:01be looking at in a sensible and reflective way.I entirely agree
6:16:01 > 6:16:07with what she has just said. There are anti-discriminatory rights it
6:16:07 > 6:16:11contains but does she agree with me that the issue which isn't yet
6:16:11 > 6:16:16resolved but which the government's and Alice may resolve --
6:16:16 > 6:16:24government's analysis may resolve and therefore don't need to be in a
6:16:24 > 6:16:26separate charter or whether they aren't yet in the law and need to be
6:16:26 > 6:16:32in the charter?I do accept that needs to be looked at but with the
6:16:32 > 6:16:38sovereignty of Parliament are you always get the point where the
6:16:38 > 6:16:41parliaments of the future can in effect change and erode those rights
6:16:41 > 6:16:46and I therefore think that the suggestion earlier that in due
6:16:46 > 6:16:51course the Human Rights Act ought to be amended in order to include that
6:16:51 > 6:16:55broader category, because we are seeing the evolution and change in
6:16:55 > 6:17:08our rights and it is important to have that in the Human Rights Act.
6:17:08 > 6:17:11Some colleagues on her side have argued that some of these rights
6:17:11 > 6:17:20contained in the charter are OTO is. One of them perhaps being that there
6:17:20 > 6:17:24shall be no forced expulsions. Not something that we have seen in this
6:17:24 > 6:17:30country but was a persistent feature in 20th-century Europe. We are now
6:17:30 > 6:17:36at a stage where the Home Office is sending out letters to EU nationals
6:17:36 > 6:17:41threatening them with deportation and all those some of these
6:17:41 > 6:17:44individuals may yet have caused to their rights under the European
6:17:44 > 6:17:52charter, that they will not be to exercise after we leave.
6:17:53 > 6:17:58I think the honourable lady does my colleagues a disservice. The rights
6:17:58 > 6:18:02of my colleagues were talking about where for example be right to
6:18:02 > 6:18:07petition the European Parliament ought to stand in EU Parliament
6:18:07 > 6:18:13elections. It was clear. I know the Home Office has made it clear that
6:18:13 > 6:18:19the letters were being sent out by mistake. Did not accurately reflect
6:18:19 > 6:18:32the position. I also think the honourable lady is being
6:18:42 > 6:18:51unfair to the take that exercise. I think it needs to. That we will have
6:18:51 > 6:18:57that undertaking and exercise than before the report stage of this
6:18:57 > 6:19:02Bill. I think it is important that this House takes informed decisions
6:19:02 > 6:19:10about where some of the gaps are. It is for that reason I also very much
6:19:10 > 6:19:25support amendment ten. I will give way to my colleague.This is an
6:19:25 > 6:19:29evolving situation and has been over a number of years. I don't want to
6:19:29 > 6:19:37introduce a partisan elements. But it has changed last three years, for
6:19:37 > 6:19:41example, when we debated the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 in 2008 in this
6:19:41 > 6:19:45House, something I was actively involved in at the time, it was the
6:19:45 > 6:19:53policy of the Labour Government that the charter should not be adjustable
6:19:53 > 6:20:01in the United Kingdom courts. They were at pains to stress this. They
6:20:01 > 6:20:06had a protocol that ruled it out. That is how much it has changed.The
6:20:06 > 6:20:13protocol is quite clear. There has been much misrepresentation of the
6:20:13 > 6:20:19protocol in this House. The protocol said that the rights contained
6:20:19 > 6:20:23within the charter where existing rights. In other words, that the
6:20:23 > 6:20:28charger did not create any new rights that had not previously
6:20:28 > 6:20:33existed. And that is the position of the Treasury front bench, that these
6:20:33 > 6:20:43are long-standing rights, rights which applied to -- apply to UK
6:20:43 > 6:20:48citizens. I am keen that where there may not be adequate protection of
6:20:48 > 6:20:54those rights currently that we make sure that the gaps are filled. To
6:20:54 > 6:21:00say article, protocol 30 was an opt out, which is how it has been
6:21:00 > 6:21:05portrayed in these debates, is frankly inaccurate and is not right.
6:21:05 > 6:21:16I was not in the debates. I will give way.I just wanted to ask her
6:21:16 > 6:21:21if she was able to expand or how she would see us getting from a position
6:21:21 > 6:21:28where there are rights should thinks should be included to that point.
6:21:28 > 6:21:33How will those rights be protected in the interim?I hope the front
6:21:33 > 6:21:39bench will go away and undertake this exercise and see, we will be
6:21:39 > 6:21:43able to see exactly from the exercise that they have promised,
6:21:43 > 6:21:49where the gaps are, where based third category of rights may fall.
6:21:49 > 6:21:54It seems to me ridiculous that we are going to bring over 12,000
6:21:54 > 6:22:02regulations covering everything from fridges to bananas! We are not going
6:22:02 > 6:22:09to deal with some of the really fundamental and basic issues that
6:22:09 > 6:22:16guarantee us as citizens certain levels of protection. I think that
6:22:16 > 6:22:25is the fundamental principle and why I support amendments ten and eight.
6:22:25 > 6:22:33Would she agree with me that it is really important that I she points
6:22:33 > 6:22:37out that concerns in the bill, we have a very proud history in the
6:22:37 > 6:22:42Parliament and in the country on human rights. The idea this
6:22:42 > 6:22:47Government is in some way taking away rights from people would be
6:22:47 > 6:22:51just simply not true. It is important that all of us report
6:22:51 > 6:22:58this, especially to our constituents, with great accuracy.I
6:22:58 > 6:23:03entirely agree with the honourable lady. I couldn't have put it better
6:23:03 > 6:23:09myself. I adopt everything she says in that regard. That is why it is
6:23:09 > 6:23:15important. We have been vilified publicly for tabling debates on this
6:23:15 > 6:23:22Bill. Tabling amendments on this Bill. But it is this type of debates
6:23:22 > 6:23:28that illustrates very dramatically to our constituents why it is so
6:23:28 > 6:23:33important that we undertake a democratic process and sometimes
6:23:33 > 6:23:43table probing amendments, which I know amendment eight was. So we can
6:23:43 > 6:23:45consider and debate these issues and they have come to consensus across
6:23:45 > 6:23:52this House. Others are wishing to speak, but these are incredibly
6:23:52 > 6:23:58important matters. And I really am waiting to hear what the front bench
6:23:58 > 6:24:02say about how they will be approaching this going forward.
6:24:06 > 6:24:12I would like to think the honourable and Bernard member for her
6:24:12 > 6:24:15contribution which shows her experience and knowledge, many years
6:24:15 > 6:24:21practising in the legal profession. I have heard other members on both
6:24:21 > 6:24:29sides who have eminent knowledge in this area. Who have spoken and will
6:24:29 > 6:24:36speak, not least of which is the Holborn and St Pancras honourable
6:24:36 > 6:24:41friend, who studied at the University of Leeds. I did not study
6:24:41 > 6:24:53law, it was the University of Leeds, but computing. EU law within UK law
6:24:53 > 6:24:58keeping in line with UK regulations. My concern is the Government's
6:24:58 > 6:25:02decision to exclude certain elements of EU law through the EU withdrawal
6:25:02 > 6:25:07process. It makes no sense whatsoever to exclude the charter of
6:25:07 > 6:25:15fundamental rights. Analysis of effect of removing the charter from
6:25:15 > 6:25:24the law, where are they? Article eight, the charter that covers data
6:25:24 > 6:25:35protection and privacy. Getting rid of close eight should stop
6:25:35 > 6:25:40businesses, harm small companies to compete when selling their products
6:25:40 > 6:25:44in social media platforms, an area in which the UK has seen huge
6:25:44 > 6:25:52growth. I am pleased from my right honourable friend from East Ham on
6:25:52 > 6:25:59this matter, their contribution. This is fundamental to our response
6:25:59 > 6:26:04to the Government's failures in clean air in golfing many of these
6:26:04 > 6:26:11cities across the UK, including my city of Leeds. Whenever there are
6:26:11 > 6:26:16environmental breaches, it must go to the cause. The UK has been sent a
6:26:16 > 6:26:22final nitrous oxide warning, to comply. In front of the
6:26:22 > 6:26:28environmental audit committee on which I sit, the Secretary of state
6:26:28 > 6:26:33could not articulate which powers and mandate the UK should have two
6:26:33 > 6:26:39combats the loss of Article 30 seven. He said, establishing new
6:26:39 > 6:26:43world leading body to give voice, bring to account. An independent
6:26:43 > 6:26:54Government able to speak its mind freely. Consult widely... And a
6:26:54 > 6:26:57clear set of principles. No definition of what those principles
6:26:57 > 6:27:06are. So how can we be satisfied with any EU withdrawal process that does
6:27:06 > 6:27:12not hold for the provision to our leaders to become accountable for
6:27:12 > 6:27:16their environmental failures? My constituents overwhelmingly voted to
6:27:16 > 6:27:22remain in the EU and do not expect to use their rights -- lose their
6:27:22 > 6:27:28right provided by the charter of rights. The right as has been
6:27:28 > 6:27:35pointed out, many of those are well established in UK law but many are
6:27:35 > 6:27:38new rights, which I've come both since our membership of the EU and
6:27:38 > 6:27:46since the signing of the Lisbon Treaty. Will the Government, and
6:27:46 > 6:27:50argue in this price for each of those rights in turn or are we to
6:27:50 > 6:27:56take it on trust that the rights will be retained and we will enjoy
6:27:56 > 6:28:02them post-exit day. Attempting to scrap the charter this way is
6:28:02 > 6:28:08currently and speaks suspicion of people up and down the country, the
6:28:08 > 6:28:15Government is not working for them but for the hardest possible Brexit.
6:28:15 > 6:28:19There have been a number of important and powerful speeches on
6:28:19 > 6:28:24both sides of the House on this important issue. I will be brief as
6:28:24 > 6:28:31I made. I will pick up by the Member for editors brief. This is what we
6:28:31 > 6:28:36are supposed to be doing in this House. This is about proper
6:28:36 > 6:28:43parliamentary scrutiny. I do not care what the newspaper headlines
6:28:43 > 6:28:47are, anyone who stands up and seeks to scrutinise this to improve it
6:28:47 > 6:28:53does their duty by their constituents. Anyone who thinks
6:28:53 > 6:28:59doing that this somehow opposing side of the bill or the wishes of
6:28:59 > 6:29:03the electorate has precious little knowledge and, even worse, no
6:29:03 > 6:29:07respect for our parliamentary processes. In an endeavour therefore
6:29:07 > 6:29:13to seek to improve the bill and insist the Government, I supported a
6:29:13 > 6:29:18number of the amendments signed by my right honourable and learn a
6:29:18 > 6:29:26friend, the Member for Beaconsfield, and others. I hope the Government
6:29:26 > 6:29:28recognises those issues and provide the means of taking them forward
6:29:28 > 6:29:34constructively. That is in everybody's good interests. I want
6:29:34 > 6:29:39to reinforce as swiftly as I make the significance of that. It is
6:29:39 > 6:29:42quite right to say that the Government's position in relation to
6:29:42 > 6:29:46the protection of EU rights has been mis-characterised by some people
6:29:46 > 6:29:51opposite. That does no good to the debate. I don't believe for one
6:29:51 > 6:29:54second it is the Government's intention to diminish rights
6:29:54 > 6:30:00protection. Equally, it is important that we get the away rights that is
6:30:00 > 6:30:04protected going forward. I hope that will be reflected by my honourable
6:30:04 > 6:30:09friend, the Solicitor General, as we move on. I wanted to refer again to
6:30:09 > 6:30:16the litigation. A classic case to make sure we do not inadvertently do
6:30:16 > 6:30:24injustice to people as we take the necessary measures in this Bill to
6:30:24 > 6:30:28incorporate existing European law into our own. No one has a problem
6:30:28 > 6:30:33with that. It cannot be right to deny people the ability to seek an
6:30:33 > 6:30:36effective remedy for a course of action which arises under retained
6:30:36 > 6:30:41law. The whole point of having sensible levitation axis of people
6:30:41 > 6:30:51are not denied everybody -- limitation Acts. It seems to me we
6:30:51 > 6:30:57need more clarity. On the proposition, it must surely be the
6:30:57 > 6:31:03case that if a pre-existing right was, cause of action was there until
6:31:03 > 6:31:06we leave the European union, it ought to be possible for someone
6:31:06 > 6:31:23there after once they become gods like to pursue through the courts.
6:31:23 > 6:31:27-- it seems the Government has made an argument because there is a
6:31:27 > 6:31:33problem with international law aspect.There can be no argument
6:31:33 > 6:31:39that the same rules should apply as they did when we were in the EU to
6:31:39 > 6:31:45any such piece of litigation, even if the end stop is our own Supreme
6:31:45 > 6:31:49Court and it is easy to do it and the bill is going to have to be
6:31:49 > 6:31:59altered to allow that to happen.My right honourable friend's cases
6:31:59 > 6:32:04inarguable, there is no answer. The only answer is to change and improve
6:32:04 > 6:32:09the bill. To fail to do so, which could then have the effect of
6:32:09 > 6:32:14denying citizens of the United Kingdom rights that they might
6:32:14 > 6:32:19otherwise have, all those by negligence by measure of
6:32:19 > 6:32:22inadvertence almost to tie up the clear, apparent, recognised loose
6:32:22 > 6:32:29and in the bill. Verging on the dish reputable. I do not believe the
6:32:29 > 6:32:35ministers on the Treasury Benz wish to do that. It is the Government's
6:32:35 > 6:32:39intention to make sure it is resolved. Can I also deal briefly
6:32:39 > 6:32:44with amendments eight and ten, because they raise important
6:32:44 > 6:32:45principles.
6:32:50 > 6:32:54Once you have incorporated the law into our law, there has to be some
6:32:54 > 6:32:59consistency and the has to be an ability for the courts when
6:32:59 > 6:33:04interpreting eight -- when interpretative yet. How otherwise
6:33:04 > 6:33:11are you to make sense of it going forward? Nobody is saying this
6:33:11 > 6:33:16should be applied after we have left the EU. But the courts themselves
6:33:16 > 6:33:27have made it equally clear. The judges are needing to have better
6:33:27 > 6:33:32guidance in the bill as to what are the parameters in which they must
6:33:32 > 6:33:38then use their constitutional function.With respect to the
6:33:38 > 6:33:44question of amendment ten, I'm sure my honourable friend has observed
6:33:44 > 6:33:51what has been said about the absence of the application of paragraph five
6:33:51 > 6:33:57to the amendment which deals specifically with the question of
6:33:57 > 6:34:00interpretation. Do see also agree that one of the greatest dangers
6:34:00 > 6:34:05would be the idea that the Supreme Court of its own volition after we
6:34:05 > 6:34:15have left would be able to supply any legislation? Is that not a
6:34:15 > 6:34:21fundamental principle as well?The most important principle is one of
6:34:21 > 6:34:26legal certainty. That is more important than anything. It may be
6:34:26 > 6:34:29sensible as soon as possible that we remove those bits of legislation
6:34:29 > 6:34:36that we do not retain. It is equally implausible to retain something
6:34:36 > 6:34:43without falling through the logic for whence that comes. Whilst I
6:34:43 > 6:34:48recognise his point, it is an issue which my right honourable friend the
6:34:48 > 6:34:57West Dorset agrees with. There are internal contradictions which should
6:34:57 > 6:35:00be removed and I hope the Government will do it by an amendment sooner
6:35:00 > 6:35:10rather than later. We want to be in the same place. Justice requires not
6:35:10 > 6:35:15only independence of the courts but it requires a proper framework in
6:35:15 > 6:35:20which the courts can operate and it requires certainty. Without
6:35:20 > 6:35:25amendments to the Bill as it stands, then we run the risk of creating a
6:35:25 > 6:35:31certainty and that cannot be on anybody's interests. I am struck by
6:35:31 > 6:35:37the tone of the responses that we have had from the front bench so
6:35:37 > 6:35:43far. It is important to stress that this is a matter of significant
6:35:43 > 6:35:47principle. We wish to give the Government a best possible fair wind
6:35:47 > 6:35:58on this. I have no doubt as to the intentions of my honourable learned
6:35:58 > 6:36:04friend. What he says will weigh heavily with many of us and I'm sure
6:36:04 > 6:36:09he will do something which is constructive and helpful and will
6:36:09 > 6:36:12help to improve the bill. It is an important point I wish to put on
6:36:12 > 6:36:18record. If there is not something that kind, we will have to return to
6:36:18 > 6:36:23the issue again as the bill progresses and I hope that will be
6:36:23 > 6:36:28necessary. It is important we stress how significant it is that we get
6:36:28 > 6:36:33these matters, which might seem technical, but not. They are vital
6:36:33 > 6:36:45to the underpinning of a sound piece of legislation going forward.I rise
6:36:45 > 6:36:48to support those amendments which seek to ensure the Charter of
6:36:48 > 6:36:53fundamental rights is not exempt when we transfer rights after
6:36:53 > 6:36:59Brexit. I suspect I have, like other people, received respondents from my
6:36:59 > 6:37:05constituents on this. I will read the last section of a letter from
6:37:05 > 6:37:11one of my constituents. He says, "I feel the EU and its legislative
6:37:11 > 6:37:14bodies protect me as a citizen and have a process of checks in place to
6:37:14 > 6:37:20protect my human rights legal rights and provide me with security. A lot
6:37:20 > 6:37:24of conversation in media covers the rights of EU citizens in the UK are
6:37:24 > 6:37:28foreign nationals but what about the rights of EU citizens in the UK who
6:37:28 > 6:37:34are British nationals? He is one of the great number of people in this
6:37:34 > 6:37:39country who are fearful of what is about to happen next. They see the
6:37:39 > 6:37:42process of leaving the European Union not as some great liberation
6:37:42 > 6:37:47in the removal of an alien superstate that oppresses them and
6:37:47 > 6:37:52over regulates them. It is a loss of something of themselves. Basins --
6:37:52 > 6:37:56they see themselves as dimensioned and lessened by this process. Others
6:37:56 > 6:38:02opposite will see that view exists but those are the views of the
6:38:02 > 6:38:09liberal elite and one of the members who suggested the vote forever
6:38:09 > 6:38:13remain in her constituency couldn't possibly have been voted --
6:38:13 > 6:38:18motivated by concern about the chart for human rights. I accept the mass
6:38:18 > 6:38:22of people are unaware of what rights we are talking about today. That
6:38:22 > 6:38:29doesn't mean they are unconcerned about them. Joni Mitchell summed it
6:38:29 > 6:38:33up with the line, you don't know what you've got until it's gone. The
6:38:33 > 6:38:38reason for that is by their very nature, political rights don't put
6:38:38 > 6:38:44obligations on the right's holders. They do not have to be cleaned every
6:38:44 > 6:38:48day. They put obligations on everyone else. We all have to
6:38:48 > 6:38:54respect the rights of others and in particular private corporations and
6:38:54 > 6:38:59public institutions have to respect the rights of others. It is not
6:38:59 > 6:39:03until they are changed and that relationship alters, that people
6:39:03 > 6:39:07understand there has been something taken away from them. That is why I
6:39:07 > 6:39:11believe it is vital to educate people about the process that is now
6:39:11 > 6:39:15happening. There has been some debate earlier about whether the
6:39:15 > 6:39:21rights in this charged her are substantial this Charter substantial
6:39:21 > 6:39:29at all. Are they not covered elsewhere in legislation? This
6:39:29 > 6:39:31parliament in 2006 established the Equality and Human Rights Commission
6:39:31 > 6:39:36to advise us on such matters. I have read the briefing and I know others
6:39:36 > 6:39:40have read the briefing where they clear examples and articles on the
6:39:40 > 6:39:44Charter which are not replicated in other forms of legislation and that
6:39:44 > 6:39:49the Charter is not transferred to British law, these rights will be
6:39:49 > 6:39:57lost. Article 22 on child labour. Article eight on the right to be
6:39:57 > 6:40:01forgotten on the Internet. Article 26 on independence for disabled
6:40:01 > 6:40:06people. Article 24 and access the children to both parents. These are
6:40:06 > 6:40:11rights that we have at the moment that we will not have if the charter
6:40:11 > 6:40:16does not come over in Brexit. It is necessary to lose these rights in
6:40:16 > 6:40:22order to achieve Brexit will stop I am not one of you but I say you
6:40:22 > 6:40:26can't have Brexit without losing these rights. It is entirely
6:40:26 > 6:40:34possible. Why is it that we are discussing this at all? The minister
6:40:34 > 6:40:39said it makes no sense to have this Charter as a country that is not
6:40:39 > 6:40:43going to be a member of the European Union because it refers to the
6:40:43 > 6:40:50European Union. Yet the entire canon of European law is being taken over
6:40:50 > 6:40:54and incorporated into British statute and this Charter goes along
6:40:54 > 6:40:58with it to give citizen's rights in respect of it. It makes total sense
6:40:58 > 6:41:06to bring this Charter over and the process of repatriating these
6:41:06 > 6:41:09powers. There has been talk about the fact that it would be silly to
6:41:09 > 6:41:16bring the server because it will create anomalies and
6:41:16 > 6:41:19inconsistencies. Notwithstanding the fact that this bill we are
6:41:19 > 6:41:23discussing recognises there would be 1 million anomalies in this process
6:41:23 > 6:41:27and makes provisions to deal with those anomalies, so we wonder what
6:41:27 > 6:41:32is so special about this Charter of human rights. Leaving that to one
6:41:32 > 6:41:41side, the most telling argument is it already is operational at the
6:41:41 > 6:41:45minute. Why is our legal system not grinding to a halt under pressure of
6:41:45 > 6:41:50these contributions -- contradictions if they are so great?
6:41:50 > 6:41:57There is no reason why couldn't they knew to work beyond 2019. In the
6:41:57 > 6:42:02absence of a rational argument as to why these clauses are in this bill,
6:42:02 > 6:42:08I am compelled to agree and I find myself and to the same conclusion
6:42:08 > 6:42:13that what is happening here is pure politics. There are those within the
6:42:13 > 6:42:20other side who will be satisfied by being thrown a bone. The idea of
6:42:20 > 6:42:29having something you get rid of which includes the words... I don't
6:42:29 > 6:42:38think this is just about as citing the people that are Europhobic and
6:42:38 > 6:42:42get pleasure from this. There is something else going on. In this
6:42:42 > 6:42:48debate, the member of the head is bree, she said that the Government
6:42:48 > 6:42:52is not intending to remove our human rights or to weaken our human
6:42:52 > 6:43:01rights. The Government has not come here and said its intention is this.
6:43:01 > 6:43:04No one this entire discussion has stood up and said that they want to
6:43:04 > 6:43:10remove people's human rights or they won't weaken protection at work or
6:43:10 > 6:43:15might the consumer protection laws that in this country. Almost no one
6:43:15 > 6:43:20has said that in this debate. I rather fear that the member for
6:43:20 > 6:43:26Gainsborough almost let the cat out of the bag when he referred to the
6:43:26 > 6:43:33wrong people having rights in this Charter. He talked about the
6:43:33 > 6:43:38repatriation so he could have real human rights in this country. I
6:43:38 > 6:43:43perish to think what he means by real human rights. I find him an
6:43:43 > 6:43:49honourable fan -- fellow. There are plenty of people in our society and
6:43:49 > 6:43:55community who will take advantage of any rollback on civil and human
6:43:55 > 6:44:00rights protection in order to make sure that our religious and
6:44:00 > 6:44:04political freedoms are constrained in order to idea to theirs. I think
6:44:04 > 6:44:09we need to be eternally vigilant about this and therefore I very much
6:44:09 > 6:44:14hope the Government will be able to think again on this question. I say
6:44:14 > 6:44:17to the centre ground of the Tory party that if what you're doing here
6:44:17 > 6:44:22is trying to keep good ship together and keep every person on board and
6:44:22 > 6:44:27you think that by giving this concession on human rights you will
6:44:27 > 6:44:32shore up the Government's support,
6:44:32 > 6:44:32concession on human rights you will shore up the Government's support,,
6:44:32 > 6:44:36David Cameron thought he would be able to do that by having a Brexit
6:44:36 > 6:44:42referendum in the first place. Look how that has worked out. Once
6:44:42 > 6:44:57bitten, twice shy, please think again.It is a pleasure to follow
6:44:57 > 6:44:59the member can I take this opportunity to assure him yet again
6:44:59 > 6:45:02that on these benches is our commitment to make sure the big
6:45:02 > 6:45:12commitment remains absolute. I have dealt with the individual. As were
6:45:12 > 6:45:19many members in this house both on this side and opposite to me. The
6:45:19 > 6:45:26point has already been made that our rights and freedoms long predate
6:45:26 > 6:45:33modern developments. Modern -- modern development have enhanced the
6:45:33 > 6:45:37range of those freedoms. The fundamental question we seek to Aske
6:45:37 > 6:45:47about the Charter is whether or not, in a fine -- final analysis,
6:45:47 > 6:45:52actually adds anything that is relevant or material to that
6:45:52 > 6:45:56sophisticated and developing body of law that has evolved over the
6:45:56 > 6:46:06generations.
6:46:11 > 6:46:15Macro it is a second reading wind-up. Others are anxious to take
6:46:15 > 6:46:26part and are mindful of time. I will deal with schedule one and egg that
6:46:26 > 6:46:31it stands part of the bill. In doing so, I will address the various
6:46:31 > 6:46:35amendments that have been tabled at pages eight to 12 of the amendment
6:46:35 > 6:46:43book which continues to maintain the same signs, even though we are now
6:46:43 > 6:46:58on day three. I will give way.He made an important statement and said
6:46:58 > 6:47:00he thought about whether retaining the convention of fundamental rights
6:47:00 > 6:47:07after he left would add anything to legal rights in this country beyond
6:47:07 > 6:47:11what we already have. In the last half an hour, we have heard my
6:47:11 > 6:47:17honourable friend describe what she calls the third category of rights
6:47:17 > 6:47:21which don't appear anywhere else in Al-Nour. We just heard the member
6:47:21 > 6:47:29for Edinburgh East Lister writes in the charter which aren't replicated
6:47:29 > 6:47:35anywhere else. Which of those rights is he happy to see abandoned? What
6:47:35 > 6:47:40is going to happen to the third category of rights? You must explain
6:47:40 > 6:47:43why he doesn't think he adds anything when the main reason people
6:47:43 > 6:47:49are trying to get rid of it is extending the scope of European
6:47:49 > 6:47:55sponsor the human rights law in this country?
6:47:55 > 6:48:02As has already been referred to, on the 5th of December, the Government
6:48:02 > 6:48:05will indeed publish its full analysis of the sources of the
6:48:05 > 6:48:09rights that we have been talking about. But, can I just remind my
6:48:09 > 6:48:16right honourable friend, the principles from EU law from which
6:48:16 > 6:48:20the charter have been developed, it will be part of the body of law that
6:48:20 > 6:48:25will bring down to the UK, and will be able to be relied upon. I will
6:48:25 > 6:48:35give way to the honourable gentleman.The rights might not be
6:48:35 > 6:48:39represented, but the fact that a general statement of right is not
6:48:39 > 6:48:43replicated verbatim in our law, does not mean that those rights are not
6:48:43 > 6:48:51otherwise protected adequately and Furley.I am grateful for my
6:48:51 > 6:48:58honourable friend. I feel as if I am going to become a proxy for a debate
6:48:58 > 6:49:00between him and my right honourable friend the member for Rushcliffe. If
6:49:00 > 6:49:09I can move on to amendments can specifically. Amendments ten which
6:49:09 > 6:49:13would remove paragraphs one and two and three from schedule one. By
6:49:13 > 6:49:16right honourable friend the member for Beaconsfield earlier drew the
6:49:16 > 6:49:21attention of the House of these very important matters and I am extremely
6:49:21 > 6:49:24grateful to him for the constructive way that he has sought to approach
6:49:24 > 6:49:30this. What tarmac while we cannot agree about paragraph one, because
6:49:30 > 6:49:38these say that the effect would be huge uncertainty, how would our...
6:49:38 > 6:49:45It is a job that they have never had before. Who would defend those
6:49:45 > 6:49:49challengers? What remedies would be available to the courts, and how
6:49:49 > 6:49:53could converted law which is found to be invalid being replaced? The
6:49:53 > 6:49:58amendments does not deal with any of these vital questions, and
6:49:58 > 6:50:01similarly, we cannot accept that paragraph two should be removed from
6:50:01 > 6:50:06his garage. There is no single definitively tarmac list of the
6:50:06 > 6:50:15principles. Paragraph two, in its current form, maximises certainty by
6:50:15 > 6:50:18specifying a clear cut-off point is that a general principle needs to
6:50:18 > 6:50:24have been recognised by the Court of Justice before we exit. Without
6:50:24 > 6:50:30this, it would be completely unclear what general and suppose could be
6:50:30 > 6:50:40used on a basis for a challenge in future? Whether new principles could
6:50:40 > 6:50:43be discovered after Brexit kiss that would be completely inappropriate,
6:50:43 > 6:50:49and I will give way to my right honourable friend.I am grateful. I
6:50:49 > 6:50:56will simply point out that I did not delete Clause 5.2. It does not
6:50:56 > 6:51:00interpret anything because the rest is gone, but never the less it did
6:51:00 > 6:51:06make it clear that we were talking about retaining EU Lord prior to the
6:51:06 > 6:51:13date of our exit.I think my right honourable friend really answered
6:51:13 > 6:51:24his own point, and the point that I would make, that without two, five
6:51:24 > 6:51:31two becomes difficult to apply. I want to come to paragraph three. Let
6:51:31 > 6:51:35me say that we do recognise the strength of use from my right
6:51:35 > 6:51:39honourable friend, and indeed other honourable members and honourable
6:51:39 > 6:51:43friend on this issue, many of whom have spoken this afternoon. We are
6:51:43 > 6:51:47listening. And we are prepared to look again at this issue, to make
6:51:47 > 6:51:52sure that we are taking a approach that can command the support of this
6:51:52 > 6:51:55house. Simply removing paragraph three in this entirety, is not
6:51:55 > 6:52:02something that we can agree to. It would mean an open ended right of
6:52:02 > 6:52:08challenge, based on the general principles of EU law, after exit. It
6:52:08 > 6:52:11would mean that domestic legislation, both secondary and
6:52:11 > 6:52:19primary rules of law and executive action could be quashed if found to
6:52:19 > 6:52:23be incompatible with those actions. The general principles apply when a
6:52:23 > 6:52:37member state quotes is acting within a state of EU law,". Allowing courts
6:52:37 > 6:52:41to overturn acts of Parliament, that is outside the context of EU law on
6:52:41 > 6:52:52the basis of incompatibility, that they would be alien to our...I am
6:52:52 > 6:52:57most grateful. He raises the question as to the scope for when
6:52:57 > 6:53:02they would apply, but it seemed to me that he was answering his own
6:53:02 > 6:53:05question, because it comes when there is a clash between the law
6:53:05 > 6:53:11that has been retained and which has supremacy, and any domestic
6:53:11 > 6:53:23legislation. It is precisely because the supremacy of the retained EU law
6:53:23 > 6:53:27is kept, that it is necessary to also have the potential for the
6:53:27 > 6:53:31general principles to have that supremacy as well, because they are
6:53:31 > 6:53:36essential to the interpretation of our law.Well, I wanted to deal with
6:53:36 > 6:53:42that particular issue in this way, because it seems to me that, I
6:53:42 > 6:53:47think, the nub of the issue that my right honourable friend is concerned
6:53:47 > 6:53:50about, is with regard to the retention of right of challenge,
6:53:50 > 6:53:57relating to pre-exit courses of action. It would be possible to
6:53:57 > 6:54:01retain theirs, and in relation to a decorative action, even after exit
6:54:01 > 6:54:05in areas that were covered by retained EU law. We can agree that
6:54:05 > 6:54:10there should be an appropriate mechanism to challenge the action of
6:54:10 > 6:54:14the executive. I am happy to discuss with my right honourable friend,
6:54:14 > 6:54:17further, what might be needed, and I am also willing to discuss whether
6:54:17 > 6:54:23there needs to be some further brutal challenge on legislation. He
6:54:23 > 6:54:27writes landscape is indeed complex, and we are seeking with this Bill to
6:54:27 > 6:54:36maximise... I will give way in a moment. In view of my commitment to
6:54:36 > 6:54:41look at this again, I therefore invite my right honourable friend to
6:54:41 > 6:54:46withdraw his amendments today, and agree to work together with us in
6:54:46 > 6:54:50this shared endeavour, and our Government will bring forward its
6:54:50 > 6:54:58own amendment at the Court stage for the processing of clarifying
6:54:58 > 6:55:02paragraph three.And very grateful to my honourable friend. He has just
6:55:02 > 6:55:08said part of the words that I hoped to hear. I hoped to hear that the
6:55:08 > 6:55:11amendment would come forward in the court. Could I clarifying whether
6:55:11 > 6:55:21that would include appropriate amendments to schedule 131 on his
6:55:21 > 6:55:27private right of action.Just turning indeed as I made to schedule
6:55:27 > 6:55:31131, to make it absolutely clear. I am interested in deed in looking at
6:55:31 > 6:55:43all aspects of that Clause, so that would be one and two.I am most
6:55:43 > 6:55:46grateful to my honourable friend, and he has made at the dispatch box
6:55:46 > 6:55:51and really important concession which I much appreciate, and clearly
6:55:51 > 6:55:56reflects the disquiet that has been showed across the House. I can tell
6:55:56 > 6:56:00you now that in the light of that I will not be pressing my amendment to
6:56:00 > 6:56:05a vote. But, I will say this to him, that it is clear from what he said
6:56:05 > 6:56:09that whilst some of the issues that I have raised have been met, I think
6:56:09 > 6:56:13I will to put on record that it is also clear that the issue about
6:56:13 > 6:56:23whether it could be used to supply primary abdication appears to be an
6:56:23 > 6:56:27area of disagreement. It is a strange area of disagreement in view
6:56:27 > 6:56:32of the fact that elsewhere we have precisely possibility of it
6:56:32 > 6:56:42happening.As I said to my right honourable friend, I do want to make
6:56:42 > 6:56:47sure that the dialogue that has been opened the continue. He knows, that
6:56:47 > 6:56:54at all times, the spirits within which he and other members support
6:56:54 > 6:57:08amendment is entirely understood and respected by the Treasury bench. I
6:57:08 > 6:57:14have been myself, many time. I can remember bills when I tabled dozens
6:57:14 > 6:57:18of amendments. I will give way to my right honourable friend.We are
6:57:18 > 6:57:24making some progress, but, I point out under the second name of these
6:57:24 > 6:57:29amendments, I should enquire whether I have a right to call for a vote,
6:57:29 > 6:57:38which I think I might have, on that amendments, so perhaps my right
6:57:38 > 6:57:42honourable friend would try to satisfy me. I am perplexed, because
6:57:42 > 6:57:48he had vigorously rejected just about every argument that my right
6:57:48 > 6:57:51honourable friend has used throughout the debate, and stuck
6:57:51 > 6:57:58rigidly to the interpretation of the bill as it stands, within which we
6:57:58 > 6:58:01started. Is the amendment which the Government is going to table,
6:58:01 > 6:58:08actually going to get at at least compromise, if it does not move
6:58:08 > 6:58:13completely towards the arguments which my right honourable friend
6:58:13 > 6:58:19has... There is no use for robbing us off with more discussions.With
6:58:19 > 6:58:22respect to my right honourable friend, I have talked in detail
6:58:22 > 6:58:26about the different subclauses to schedule one, and I have been
6:58:26 > 6:58:31looking in particular at three, and indeed in response to the
6:58:31 > 6:58:33clarification sought by my right honourable friend for Dorset west, I
6:58:33 > 6:58:40made sure that all of Clause three would be the subject of that
6:58:40 > 6:58:43clarification and the bringing forward of an amendment. Neither he
6:58:43 > 6:58:49nor I are fans of having their cake and eating it when it comes to EU
6:58:49 > 6:58:55withdrawal, and with respect to him, I think I am offering something
6:58:55 > 6:59:00substantial here that will satisfy him, I hope, this evening. I will
6:59:00 > 6:59:07give way to my honourable friend.I do hope that the Solicitor General
6:59:07 > 6:59:11would be good enough to look at the deficiencies in the current
6:59:11 > 6:59:21amendment to reference also by a parallel five. Will he also
6:59:21 > 6:59:27confirmed, that the matter is being scrutinised, and I can assure that
6:59:27 > 6:59:34we have this on our agenda, we are ourselves scrutinising all of these
6:59:34 > 6:59:38matters, and will continue to do so so that we can be sure that this
6:59:38 > 6:59:46house is not a written by...I am grateful to my honourable friend. I
6:59:46 > 6:59:52am always interested to see how the write-up of one close to the
6:59:52 > 6:59:58schedule applies to another. I think it is primarily Clause three. I will
6:59:58 > 7:00:02give way to the honourable gentleman week. He has been very tenacious,
7:00:02 > 7:00:13please forgive me.Thank you very much. Patients is a virtue that I am
7:00:13 > 7:00:18not messed with. I thank you. The Solicitor General has actually made
7:00:18 > 7:00:32an important concession. And I do respect him. May I... That he will
7:00:32 > 7:00:37look very carefully at the impact on the Good Friday Agreement. It is
7:00:37 > 7:00:41being used in a divisive manner at home in Northern Ireland. It has
7:00:41 > 7:00:47been exploited by those who wish to exploit it, and I think it would be
7:00:47 > 7:00:50enormously helpful to give those reassurances that the Good Friday
7:00:50 > 7:00:56Agreement is not going to be impacted negatively by this bill.I
7:00:56 > 7:01:01am extremely grateful to the honourable lady, and I know that she
7:01:01 > 7:01:05has a deep and long-term commitments to ensuring that the Good Friday
7:01:05 > 7:01:08Agreement, and the subsequent progress that has been made is
7:01:08 > 7:01:14maintained, and I said that 100%. Whilst I may not have the same
7:01:14 > 7:01:18knowledge that she has about Northern Ireland, I am very
7:01:18 > 7:01:23sensitive to understand that there is still not that essential
7:01:23 > 7:01:27consensus about what human rights should mean for every corner of
7:01:27 > 7:01:32Northern Ireland. It is in that spirit, that of course I will be
7:01:32 > 7:01:38happy to make sure and to undertake that impact on Northern Ireland are
7:01:38 > 7:01:42fully considered at all stages of any review or any re-examination or
7:01:42 > 7:01:48clarification of this Bill. I am grateful to have for allowing me
7:01:48 > 7:01:54to... I better make some progress. I certainly will give way in a moment.
7:01:54 > 7:01:57If it's on this point than I will give way to the honourable
7:01:57 > 7:02:04gentleman?I thank the Solicitor General for giving way, and think it
7:02:04 > 7:02:07is important that the House has clarity on the contents of the
7:02:07 > 7:02:17memorandum that he is proposing to published on the 6th of December. He
7:02:17 > 7:02:21has said that this will seek to identify the sources of the rights
7:02:21 > 7:02:24contained in the Charter. He has hurt in a debate today that there is
7:02:24 > 7:02:28concern on both sides of the House that he will not be able to identify
7:02:28 > 7:02:32the sources for every single one of those rights, and a number of
7:02:32 > 7:02:37instances has been cited. Will he also undertake that where there are
7:02:37 > 7:02:41gaps, his review published on the 5th of December, what outline what
7:02:41 > 7:02:47the Government prepares to take to fill those gaps, so that the point
7:02:47 > 7:02:54of exit, we retain all of our existing rights.
7:02:54 > 7:03:00Can I just make it clear that in the form of both the words of my
7:03:00 > 7:03:05honourable friend, the Minister of State today, and in previous
7:03:05 > 7:03:09assurances for exiting the European Union, we are seeking to publish
7:03:09 > 7:03:14those details. If there are any further concerns, we can have a
7:03:14 > 7:03:20continuing dialogue to make sure the information is in a format is
7:03:20 > 7:03:25comprehensive and that does seek to address the issues raised today and
7:03:25 > 7:03:31elsewhere. I think the 5th of December would be a meaningful and
7:03:31 > 7:03:37-- event and greater progress when it comes to getting this process
7:03:37 > 7:03:44right. Can I move on to the question of general principles themselves
7:03:44 > 7:03:50Western Mark I wanted to emphasise that there is an argument to say why
7:03:50 > 7:03:55it wouldn't be appropriate to incorporate the constitutional
7:03:55 > 7:03:59administrative principles of the EU as freestanding principles in
7:03:59 > 7:04:02Al-Nour by inserting a specific right of action and the remedy of
7:04:02 > 7:04:09strike down in domestic red station based upon incompatibility with EU
7:04:09 > 7:04:15law principles when we are no longer a member of that institution. Some
7:04:15 > 7:04:20will cease to make sense when we have left. Except for the purposes
7:04:20 > 7:04:26of retained EU law. The principles will continue to be reflected
7:04:26 > 7:04:35elsewhere in our domestic law anyway.Hasn't he again just and
7:04:35 > 7:04:39said his own question? I appreciate some of the general principles will
7:04:39 > 7:04:44evaporate because they cease to be relevant but those which are
7:04:44 > 7:04:50relevant to the interpretation of retained EU law must still be
7:04:50 > 7:04:55relevant because they would be used as a tall and eight to
7:04:55 > 7:04:58interpretation. In those circumstances, why should an
7:04:58 > 7:05:03individual or business be deprived of raising them as arguments for
7:05:03 > 7:05:09saying that in fact a law which is supposed to be supreme and therefore
7:05:09 > 7:05:16overcome domestic legislation, why in those circumstances principles
7:05:16 > 7:05:21can't be used to have that bit of offending domestic legislation set
7:05:21 > 7:05:30aside? I don't understand the rationale.The rationale is quite
7:05:30 > 7:05:34straightforward in this sense. In seeking to achieve maximum
7:05:34 > 7:05:41certainty, there is a danger in allowing the system to create a
7:05:41 > 7:05:46situation where the law might rapidly degrade in a way that
7:05:46 > 7:05:52doesn't actually achieved that stability and certainty. It is
7:05:52 > 7:05:59almost a reverse logic. It is trying to make sure we have unidentifiable
7:05:59 > 7:06:05and understandable body of retained EU law. I wanted to explore some of
7:06:05 > 7:06:11the principles that will go. I won't give way at the moment because I
7:06:11 > 7:06:15need to give progress. The EU principle of good administration.
7:06:15 > 7:06:20That will not have relevance to our UK law after exits because the body
7:06:20 > 7:06:25is invested and will be returned here. The normal domestic rules
7:06:25 > 7:06:29about the exercise of such powers by public bodies will apply. Another
7:06:29 > 7:06:35example is the principle of subsidiarity. That doesn't make
7:06:35 > 7:06:41sense outside the concept of EU membership. The bill is taking a
7:06:41 > 7:06:46snapshot of the law as it stands at the moment we leave. Retaining the
7:06:46 > 7:06:50right of action based on general principles of EU law which may
7:06:50 > 7:06:54change and will change in the future, would lead to uncertainty of
7:06:54 > 7:06:58the businesses and individuals about their rights and obligations. If we
7:06:58 > 7:07:04end up in a situation where pre-exit legislation could be struck down or
7:07:04 > 7:07:07if administrative decisions could be challenged on the basis of these
7:07:07 > 7:07:13principles. An echo of what I was saying to my right honourable
7:07:13 > 7:07:17friend. That is the case given the uncertainty about the way in which
7:07:17 > 7:07:21principles could develop or about the circumstances in which they
7:07:21 > 7:07:27would apply after exits. It would make sense to bind ourselves to such
7:07:27 > 7:07:31an imprecise open-ended and in certain set of principles. It
7:07:31 > 7:07:38doesn't mitigate legal absurdity -- legal certainty, it increases it. We
7:07:38 > 7:07:43bind ourselves to principles which are the EU's judge-made principles.
7:07:43 > 7:07:49When we have our own constitutional and common law principles. Such an
7:07:49 > 7:07:55approach risks duplication and confusion. More fundamentally,
7:07:55 > 7:08:02outside the context of EU law, the ability the courts to disappear I
7:08:02 > 7:08:05premiere legislation is inconsistent with the way our Constitution works
7:08:05 > 7:08:09and the balance of powers that has to exist between the legislative and
7:08:09 > 7:08:19judicial branches. I will give way. I thank him for saying he will look
7:08:19 > 7:08:23seriously at these points during the committee stage. The point of
7:08:23 > 7:08:29bringing the EU law on to the UK law is to give certainty. In each of
7:08:29 > 7:08:32those European Equis late -- regulations, we had the strict
7:08:32 > 7:08:38articles of the legislation and there are recitals to give guidance
7:08:38 > 7:08:43as to how it is to be interpreted and implemented. Can he give assured
7:08:43 > 7:08:47us that he would look to make sure will not only have our judges look
7:08:47 > 7:08:55at the articles, but the ability to look at the recitals that give way?
7:08:55 > 7:09:00I can assure my honourable friend that will be the case. We have had a
7:09:00 > 7:09:03debate about it in a different context earlier in committee but I
7:09:03 > 7:09:09can assure her that the material is relevant that any court that might
7:09:09 > 7:09:18have to interpret it. Can I deal briefly... I will give way.I asked
7:09:18 > 7:09:22him to and is a crucial point earlier when he spoke related to the
7:09:22 > 7:09:26statement made by the Prime Minister's spokesperson this morning
7:09:26 > 7:09:30that the Government expects the European justice's rolled to be
7:09:30 > 7:09:34unchanged during a period of two years following the official Brexit
7:09:34 > 7:09:40date in March 2000 and 19. After -- if that is so, it undermines the
7:09:40 > 7:09:47premise of clause five schedule one which reviles -- revolve around exit
7:09:47 > 7:09:52date. With him with the clauses in the light of what was said this
7:09:52 > 7:09:57morning?She has a very keen memory and she will not have forgotten the
7:09:57 > 7:10:00Government's commitment to a separate withdrawal agreement Bill.
7:10:00 > 7:10:03Within that bill will be provisions relating to the implementation of
7:10:03 > 7:10:11the inter-is -- interim, transition period. I do have to press on
7:10:11 > 7:10:18because I would save this, the fact that this bill is taking a
7:10:18 > 7:10:22particular course with legal exit is nothing to do with the transition
7:10:22 > 7:10:25period which has to be a separate matter and rightly the Government
7:10:25 > 7:10:30has made it clear it will bring legislation to this house in order
7:10:30 > 7:10:35for this house to determine the law when it comes to the transitional
7:10:35 > 7:10:39period. There were some important references by the honourable member
7:10:39 > 7:10:46for East Ham to the data protection Amendment that stood in his name. I
7:10:46 > 7:10:50want to make these observations. The member for Argyll and Bute spoke
7:10:50 > 7:10:54about it. UK doesn't have to be subject to the charter in order to
7:10:54 > 7:10:59benefit from adequacy editions on data protection once we leave the
7:10:59 > 7:11:03EU. The charter applies to EU institutions and EU member states
7:11:03 > 7:11:10when acting within the scope of EU law. Countries which benefit from
7:11:10 > 7:11:13adequacy are not required to be subject to the charter. There are
7:11:13 > 7:11:17many examples of countries which have adequacy by virtue of the data
7:11:17 > 7:11:26protection directive of 1995. They include countries like Canada, New
7:11:26 > 7:11:33Zealand, Switzerland, Uruguay, Argentina, the Faroe Islands and
7:11:33 > 7:11:38other third countries. I must also deal briefly with the further
7:11:38 > 7:11:45effects of amendments 101 and 336. These amendments seek to set out an
7:11:45 > 7:11:49extensively broader definition of which general principles are to be
7:11:49 > 7:11:53retained and the bill, to include principles as they are recognised in
7:11:53 > 7:12:01EU legislation as well as case. The point to make is that whereas some
7:12:01 > 7:12:07of the general principles are now set out in the EU treaties, these
7:12:07 > 7:12:09general principles were first recognised by the European Court of
7:12:09 > 7:12:15Justice. They were and are judge-made law and all the
7:12:15 > 7:12:20principles ultimately have a basis in case law. We have already debated
7:12:20 > 7:12:24the inclusion of article 191 of the Lisbon Treaty on the functioning of
7:12:24 > 7:12:31the European Union. I am not going to repeat those arguments here. That
7:12:31 > 7:12:37said, I want to restate that the inclusion of article 191 risks going
7:12:37 > 7:12:43further than the existing principles set out in EU and UK law today. The
7:12:43 > 7:12:48requirements that these amendments set out do not exist today in EU or
7:12:48 > 7:12:53domestic law. If the amendments were made, they would require the courts
7:12:53 > 7:12:56to interpret or legislation compatibly with environmental
7:12:56 > 7:13:01principles. Given the bill's purpose is to bring into effect the law we
7:13:01 > 7:13:04have currently, these amendments risk generating a measure of
7:13:04 > 7:13:12uncertainty and a degree of confusion about the legal position.
7:13:12 > 7:13:19Could I go back to clause five, subsection one. Principle of the
7:13:19 > 7:13:23supremacy of EU law does not apply to any enactment or rule of law
7:13:23 > 7:13:28passed or made or not have exit day. What the Solicitor General look at
7:13:28 > 7:13:32that in light of the Government's excellent termination that the ECJ
7:13:32 > 7:13:40will still be effectively subject to it during the beginning of the Trans
7:13:40 > 7:13:50-- transfer period? If that is the case, that is not so --...I know
7:13:50 > 7:13:56she listens to what I say and I'm sure she would agree that first of
7:13:56 > 7:14:00all the transition period has to be the subject of a separate piece of
7:14:00 > 7:14:10legislation. Secondly, what we have to cater for in this bill is as high
7:14:10 > 7:14:14a degree of certainty for that legal exit date. That is an important
7:14:14 > 7:14:20first step before we get into the question of transition, that interim
7:14:20 > 7:14:27period which needs to be underpinned clearly by legislation in this house
7:14:27 > 7:14:32but which is a separate and distinct stage. I do not think there is any
7:14:32 > 7:14:35contradiction between the position we want to take in a transition
7:14:35 > 7:14:40period subject to the negotiation and the clear position we want to
7:14:40 > 7:14:48take in this bill. Can I turn back. I was dealing with amendments 101.
7:14:48 > 7:14:51Amendment 336 goes further still as it would give a right of action
7:14:51 > 7:14:55based on failure to comply with the environmental principles and
7:14:55 > 7:14:59legislation would be at risk of being struck down by the courts if
7:14:59 > 7:15:04it wasn't compatible them. I hope Honourable members will be reassured
7:15:04 > 7:15:11and encouraged by my right honourable friend, when he announced
7:15:11 > 7:15:16on the 12th of November Aaron tension to create a new
7:15:16 > 7:15:18comprehensive policy statement setting out the environmental
7:15:18 > 7:15:24principles. That is going to draw upon EU's principles and it will
7:15:24 > 7:15:31underpin future policy making. The bill I would argue takes the right
7:15:31 > 7:15:34approach of retaining the principles as they have been recognised by the
7:15:34 > 7:15:38European Court which provides the greatest possible clarity and
7:15:38 > 7:15:44certainty. Amendment 336 would alter the approach to the taking of that
7:15:44 > 7:15:48snapshot of EU law as it applies immediately before exit day. This
7:15:48 > 7:15:53amendment prejudge is the outcome of negotiations and introduces
7:15:53 > 7:15:58flexibility by seeking to bind us to decisions made by the European Court
7:15:58 > 7:16:01on general principles the full duration of any increment Asian.
7:16:01 > 7:16:07That pre-empts and prejudices the outcome of the negotiations. I would
7:16:07 > 7:16:11urge the Honourable and right honourable members to withdraw their
7:16:11 > 7:16:18amendments today. Can I deal finally with paragraph four 's schedule one
7:16:18 > 7:16:22which would remove the right to what is referred to as Frank bitch
7:16:22 > 7:16:32damages from our domestic law after exit. -- referred to as damage from
7:16:32 > 7:16:37our domestic law after exit. An arm of that state has committed a
7:16:37 > 7:16:42sufficiently serious breach of its EU law obligations and there is a
7:16:42 > 7:16:46directional -- link between the breach and damage. It isn't a
7:16:46 > 7:16:49wide-ranging general right to sue the Government but rather it is
7:16:49 > 7:16:56inextricably linked to and constrained by membership of the EU.
7:16:56 > 7:17:00Nor, as some have suggested, is this an everyday cause of action for the
7:17:00 > 7:17:06average citizen. The number of cases heard by UK courts over the past 26
7:17:06 > 7:17:11years is relatively low. Estimates vary but studies suggest in the 20
7:17:11 > 7:17:17years following the decision, that it had been 22 to 25 cases. In most
7:17:17 > 7:17:23of these cases, the damages have been sought by businesses not
7:17:23 > 7:17:26individuals. That includes large companies seeking to pursue
7:17:26 > 7:17:35commercial interest. In 2015, in their legal challenges to the
7:17:35 > 7:17:39domestic legislation standardising the packaging of tobacco products,
7:17:39 > 7:17:43the tobacco companies reserve their right to claim damages should they
7:17:43 > 7:17:46succeed on the substance of their claims against the Government. I
7:17:46 > 7:17:51make this point because Enron Matt suggests removing the producer Regis
7:17:51 > 7:17:55Access to justice for the average citizen is not reflected in the UK
7:17:55 > 7:18:04experience. I will give way.
7:18:04 > 7:18:08I am grateful. I understand everything that he is saying, and he
7:18:08 > 7:18:12understands the point that I made about Francovich... The point about
7:18:12 > 7:18:21transition is key, and I have to say to him that it is not a comfortable
7:18:21 > 7:18:25argument to suggest that just one person being deprived of a legal
7:18:25 > 7:18:34right, or one business, is a acceptable circumstance.I didn't
7:18:34 > 7:18:39say that. I did not say that. And if that was the impression that was
7:18:39 > 7:18:44created, then I am afraid that he is mistaken. What I am talking about is
7:18:44 > 7:18:48trying to balance out and put into context, the use of this particular
7:18:48 > 7:18:52procedure, and it needs to be done because we have not heard the other
7:18:52 > 7:18:57side of the argument. That is what I am seeking to try and do. In
7:18:57 > 7:19:05contrast, all existing domestic law groups challenge, and remedies of
7:19:05 > 7:19:07breaching EU law, will remain understand. For example, this
7:19:07 > 7:19:15provision does not affect statutory rights to claim damages in respect
7:19:15 > 7:19:22to retain EU law. All the caselaw which applies the interpretation of
7:19:22 > 7:19:26any such provisions. Nor does it affect the rights to challenge the
7:19:26 > 7:19:39decisions of public bodies by way of... I also still will be able --
7:19:39 > 7:19:45they also still will be able to make a claim for restitution. The
7:19:45 > 7:19:51existing rights to Francovich damages, it is linked to EU
7:19:51 > 7:19:56membership, and the obligations that we have too a member state at the EU
7:19:56 > 7:20:00on an international level. There is clearly indifference which is being
7:20:00 > 7:20:05kept by the bill to prevent legal uncertainty, and the supernatural
7:20:05 > 7:20:11procedure laws rules and framework that will no longer be appropriate
7:20:11 > 7:20:16once we have left the EU. That's me turn briefly in closing through the
7:20:16 > 7:20:25amendments 1309 to 302. They would retain the rights to Francovich
7:20:25 > 7:20:30damages in pre-exit law. Amendment 335 foot simile maintain the right
7:20:30 > 7:20:36to Francovich damages, and domestic law, and indeed, the bill sets out
7:20:36 > 7:20:46as well, at paragraph 27 schedule eight, that the approval of
7:20:46 > 7:20:55Francovich damages would only apply to... We will consider further
7:20:55 > 7:20:58whether any additional specific and more detailed transitional
7:20:58 > 7:21:05arrangements should be set out in regulations. I will give way.I am
7:21:05 > 7:21:09delighted to hear the Solicitor General say that. As he will
7:21:09 > 7:21:13appreciate. The point is a simple one. It must be the case that the
7:21:13 > 7:21:19damages are available if the action takes place before exit day. It is a
7:21:19 > 7:21:26very basic principle of law, and quite easily to create.Perhaps I
7:21:26 > 7:21:29can forgive my right honourable friend his eagerness to hear the
7:21:29 > 7:21:34mark that I was going to make, and I am sure that when this debate
7:21:34 > 7:21:38finishes, he and I will continue the dialogue that we have had for
7:21:38 > 7:21:43sometime about these matters. Can I just finished, I will give way very
7:21:43 > 7:21:47briefly, it will not be right to maintain in general and open ended
7:21:47 > 7:21:53rights to these form damages after exit for any or potential pre-exit
7:21:53 > 7:21:56causes of action, because I am concerned that we would end up with
7:21:56 > 7:22:01an almost indefinite trail of cases. That is not good for certainty, it
7:22:01 > 7:22:09is not good for you transition that we want to make. I was going to give
7:22:09 > 7:22:13way to mountable friend.I am grateful to him. And before the
7:22:13 > 7:22:17Solicitor General finishes his remarks, this evening, can I just
7:22:17 > 7:22:21say that listening to what has largely been a debate between
7:22:21 > 7:22:24distinguished legal minds on all sides. There are two think that's
7:22:24 > 7:22:28likely as very important. This debate has really about been about
7:22:28 > 7:22:31legislative quality control rather than political budget and Judy, and
7:22:31 > 7:22:35that should be very reassuring for anybody watching this debate. The
7:22:35 > 7:22:38second thing is that the tone with which my honourable friend and his
7:22:38 > 7:22:41colleagues have been in gauging with colleagues on all sides to find a
7:22:41 > 7:22:47way through and make the best laws, I think he sends a fantastically
7:22:47 > 7:22:50powerful message. Will he guarantee to continue working in this book to
7:22:50 > 7:22:57take the billboard.Well, my honourable friend, I am very
7:22:57 > 7:23:01grateful to him for making that observation, but it is not just on
7:23:01 > 7:23:07the side, my honourable lady, I am assuring you that I have listened
7:23:07 > 7:23:12careful to members of all sides of this house in the true spirit of
7:23:12 > 7:23:16committee, but I must, I think, I will give the right honourable
7:23:16 > 7:23:23lady...I thank you for giving way, because unfortunately I was not able
7:23:23 > 7:23:27to be in the chamber for a large part of this debate, because I was
7:23:27 > 7:23:29chairing the Bill committee, but can I thank him for taking into
7:23:29 > 7:23:34consideration the point that I have raised on behalf of my constituents
7:23:34 > 7:23:39concerning Francovich. I am hoping that this will go a long way.
7:23:39 > 7:23:45Towards providing the car and the certainty that he requires. Can I
7:23:45 > 7:23:48thank everyone again for listening to the point that I made in the
7:23:48 > 7:23:52debate the other day, and I hope that this will move towards a
7:23:52 > 7:23:54successful conclusion for the outcome of the case of my
7:23:54 > 7:23:59constituents.I am very grateful to my right honourable friend. I would,
7:23:59 > 7:24:04with the greatest of respect, and indeed in the spirit of comradeship,
7:24:04 > 7:24:08almost, as the honourable and right honourable members to withdraw their
7:24:08 > 7:24:15amendments. Information, we have listened and will continue to
7:24:15 > 7:24:19reflect carefully upon all of the arguments that have been made today.
7:24:19 > 7:24:22The Government believes that the approach that we are taking is
7:24:22 > 7:24:25indeed the right one to make, as we carefully separate our legal system
7:24:25 > 7:24:31from that of the EU, and restore democratic control to this
7:24:31 > 7:24:40parliament. Schedule one the standard part of this bill, I hope.
7:24:40 > 7:24:49Thank you. I would like to speak in support of amendments eight, 46, 79,
7:24:49 > 7:24:57the very excellent amendments of my honourable friend, amendment, 151,
7:24:57 > 7:25:03and... Whilst I have enjoy the opportunity today to intervene on
7:25:03 > 7:25:09the legal debates, that the honourable friend from Gloucester
7:25:09 > 7:25:14pointed out. I think it is also a potent as we come towards the end of
7:25:14 > 7:25:18this debate, to think about general principles. To take a step back, and
7:25:18 > 7:25:23to think about the politics of what we are debating today, as opposed to
7:25:23 > 7:25:28just the legal issues. Which I may touch on briefly. The EU Charter of
7:25:28 > 7:25:35Fundamental Rights, is exactly what it is on the tin. It is a statement,
7:25:35 > 7:25:40fundamental principles. An anchor on which European legislation must
7:25:40 > 7:25:48comply. It protects the grounding of what we deem to be acceptable in our
7:25:48 > 7:25:52democracy. Legislation details of calls for debate, but they must be
7:25:52 > 7:25:56an edge to these fundamental rights, because as we have had today,
7:25:56 > 7:26:00failure to do so can lead to actions in the court and the awarding of
7:26:00 > 7:26:10damages. When the innocent spoke from the dispatch box earlier, I
7:26:10 > 7:26:13respectfully disagree. When my constituents have the rights to
7:26:13 > 7:26:18actions in the court, and in certain circumstances to receive damages,
7:26:18 > 7:26:23that has value, that means something to citizens. They asked fundamental
7:26:23 > 7:26:26enforceable rights which we should be proud of. It is right to say that
7:26:26 > 7:26:37the dominant... As we will learn over the coming weeks and months,
7:26:37 > 7:26:43the tsunami of EU law that we seek to copy and paste into UK law, comes
7:26:43 > 7:26:49with it with principles that we must protect. This is a nonsensical
7:26:49 > 7:26:52policy from the Government, the fact that we are bringing ECJ case law
7:26:52 > 7:27:01into UK Supreme Court... Means that the case or around the Charter of
7:27:01 > 7:27:08Fundamental Rights right... That cannot make sense unless the
7:27:08 > 7:27:14Government are saying that they wish to pick these out. One of the issues
7:27:14 > 7:27:21that was raised very powerfully by my right honourable member, the
7:27:21 > 7:27:28member for East Ham on the data protection Bill, was this issue of
7:27:28 > 7:27:31adequacy and equivalence. The Government might find it
7:27:31 > 7:27:35uncomfortable to recognise the obviousness that when it comes to
7:27:35 > 7:27:38financial services data protection or other issues where we seek to
7:27:38 > 7:27:42maintain and equivalence in the European market, we must track and
7:27:42 > 7:28:04embed EU dress product -- EU jurisprudence ... Which of these
7:28:04 > 7:28:09bright is so the heavenly disagrees with? It leads me to draw the
7:28:09 > 7:28:12conclusion in common with the father of the House that the only thing
7:28:12 > 7:28:15that the Government appears to be happy with about the Charter of
7:28:15 > 7:28:19Fundamental Rights is that it is presided, preceded by the letters
7:28:19 > 7:28:30here and you. My constituencies will suffer losses of rights. This is not
7:28:30 > 7:28:34aggression of ideological Brexit party politics, this is a issue of
7:28:34 > 7:28:39fundamental rights. We cannot pay politics with these issues, because
7:28:39 > 7:28:42if we fail to keep the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we failed to
7:28:42 > 7:28:49ensure that the laws brought under, in the EU withdrawal bill, we failed
7:28:49 > 7:28:52to ensure that we are anchored to the fundamental principles on which
7:28:52 > 7:28:58they are drafted. That leaves us to interpret the right of citizens in
7:28:58 > 7:29:04the direction of the winds of the day, without the statue to --
7:29:04 > 7:29:09statutory anger that holds them to do that under the Bible principles.
7:29:09 > 7:29:13I will move to what I said I was going to move to, which is the
7:29:13 > 7:29:24general principles... We must ask the question, by repealing the
7:29:24 > 7:29:27Charter of Fundamental Rights, what does this say about the type of
7:29:27 > 7:29:33country we are and wish to be? One of the outcomes of this Brexit
7:29:33 > 7:29:40process and the removal of the Charter, is we have failed to set up
7:29:40 > 7:29:45a vision of what is an acceptable basis for a developed modern
7:29:45 > 7:29:50democracy. My sense is that we have lost our way. Because, removing
7:29:50 > 7:29:53these fundamental rights says something about who we are and how
7:29:53 > 7:29:59will we should conduct business as a country. The pride that all of us
7:29:59 > 7:30:02share of what it means to be British, and our influence in the
7:30:02 > 7:30:08world, must it must be right to say, is based in the standards that we
7:30:08 > 7:30:13sat at home and abroad. That was the purpose of the EU Charter of
7:30:13 > 7:30:16Fundamental Rights. To make a statement of those standards that we
7:30:16 > 7:30:23should be proud about as a developed modern democracy. I, for one, want
7:30:23 > 7:30:33to continue to be proud of my country. It has to be said it is it
7:30:33 > 7:30:44desperate remain Mac representative -- Remain... We are bringing ECJ
7:30:44 > 7:30:48case law into the case law of the UK anyway, says to me, that we do not
7:30:48 > 7:30:54know what kind of country we want to deliver. In the context of losing of
7:30:54 > 7:30:57thousands of jobs from relocating agencies. In the context of losing
7:30:57 > 7:31:01our seas for the first time ever on the UN International Court of
7:31:01 > 7:31:07Justice, and filled with desperation about what type of country we are
7:31:07 > 7:31:12seeking to deliver for our citizens. I don't want to see what Britain
7:31:12 > 7:31:15looks like in the future, and removing these fundamental rights
7:31:15 > 7:31:19goes to the heart of that question. I want my constituents and the
7:31:19 > 7:31:23citizens of this country to look to Britain and see that we protect and
7:31:23 > 7:31:27recognise these fundamental rights. Again, fundamental right that we
7:31:27 > 7:31:33should be proud of. I for one, think that as Brexit continues to unfold,
7:31:33 > 7:31:37and my constituents and others continue to see the losses that they
7:31:37 > 7:31:41are suffering of these consequence of this referendum. The loss of
7:31:41 > 7:31:45access to the single market, the loss of access to the customs union.
7:31:45 > 7:31:47The loss of rights that are protected in law today that they
7:31:47 > 7:31:52deserve the right to change their mind. I once again say to the
7:31:52 > 7:31:56Government, and the Treasury benches who are in no doubt listening
7:31:56 > 7:32:04intently to Mike comments, -- to my comments, that this is clearly a
7:32:04 > 7:32:10question of politics and not of law. Please, I plead, but the ideological
7:32:10 > 7:32:18Brexit party politics to one side. Bring censor the dispatch box and
7:32:18 > 7:32:22protect my constituents' enforceable rights as proudly set out in the EU
7:32:22 > 7:32:27Charter of fundamental rights.
7:32:27 > 7:32:33It is a pleasure to say a few words. It is a pleasure to listen to this
7:32:33 > 7:32:37debate which seems to be an example of what a committee stage debate
7:32:37 > 7:32:42should be. It is not about the principles about whether we leave or
7:32:42 > 7:32:49remain, but about this list Asian -- legislation being in the best
7:32:49 > 7:32:55possible shape. The first area I want to talk about is amendments 139
7:32:55 > 7:33:04and 302. Regarding the right to seek damages post Brexit. Also the
7:33:04 > 7:33:11Charter. About seeking damages post Brexit, it is axiomatic that if the
7:33:11 > 7:33:15axe of the state which cause loss took place at a time when a remedy
7:33:15 > 7:33:21was available, it would be wrong for that remedy to be ripped away
7:33:21 > 7:33:26unilaterally. It is a principle of English law and British law that
7:33:26 > 7:33:31past tax must be considered in the context of the law as it applied at
7:33:31 > 7:33:35the time. I have been grateful to hear the words to suggest he may be
7:33:35 > 7:33:42looking again at this. I would expect that he will welcome this
7:33:42 > 7:33:50across the House. If I may turn to this issue of the charter. I want to
7:33:50 > 7:33:55explain why I think, despite somebody who has supported Remain, I
7:33:55 > 7:34:00don't think -- I have been the Government is right to not seek
7:34:00 > 7:34:09retention of the charter. I speak as someone who values human rights come
7:34:09 > 7:34:19who argues forcefully in rib favour of remaining --... I am delighted it
7:34:19 > 7:34:25has been taken off the table. Why do I speak as I do? The first thing
7:34:25 > 7:34:31before explaining that is to set out why I think we must accept the
7:34:31 > 7:34:36charter does and rights and it would be wrong to consider it being
7:34:36 > 7:34:41consequential but that is not dispositive. The honourable member
7:34:41 > 7:34:46for Leicester East suggested it was of no more legal effect. Whilst
7:34:46 > 7:34:54there is some duplication, there are four reasons why it has rights.
7:34:54 > 7:35:00First, the creation of substantive new rights, the right to dignity,
7:35:00 > 7:35:05protection, personal data, conscientious objection, bioethics,
7:35:05 > 7:35:11independence that disabled people and all that. The second point is it
7:35:11 > 7:35:17widens the scope of existing rights in English law. The right to a fair
7:35:17 > 7:35:21trial which exists under article six is widened by the charter. It
7:35:21 > 7:35:29extends it beyond the obligations and criminal charges the immigration
7:35:29 > 7:35:33cases. The third way it creates new rights is it creates a right to
7:35:33 > 7:35:40invoke the charter in respect of anyone with an interest. It is far
7:35:40 > 7:35:45broader than the convention. Fourth and most importantly, whereas
7:35:45 > 7:35:48breaches can only lead to a declaration of incompatibility,
7:35:48 > 7:35:54breach of the charter is far more muscular because it will allow the
7:35:54 > 7:36:01charter to take precedence over UK law. Having set out that, why aren't
7:36:01 > 7:36:06I arguing in favour of retaining it? The simple reason is it can be
7:36:06 > 7:36:13summed up in one word as inconsistency. There is already
7:36:13 > 7:36:20pre-Brexit and inconsistency in the law. Litigants Imrul Kayes involving
7:36:20 > 7:36:32EU law which is the only category to which the charter applies. --
7:36:32 > 7:36:42litigants in this case. The scope for absurdity becomes clear.
7:36:42 > 7:36:47Supposing the state were to pass a law which is a clear reference to
7:36:47 > 7:36:50human rights, it was going to detain suspects without charge the six
7:36:50 > 7:36:54months, it was going to bring back the stocks at a breach of article
7:36:54 > 7:37:00three on torture, slavery or a breach of article four on torture
7:37:00 > 7:37:03and inhuman degrading treatment. In those circumstances all the litigant
7:37:03 > 7:37:11would be able to do is persuade the court to make a declaration of
7:37:11 > 7:37:15incompatibility. If the UK sought to enforce a law regarding personal
7:37:15 > 7:37:21data, he can be dis- applied. WoodMac create a bizarre
7:37:21 > 7:37:24inconsistency? That inconsistency exists already but will it become
7:37:24 > 7:37:34more difficult to sustain.I thank him for giving way and I'm following
7:37:34 > 7:37:37his arguments very carefully. I'm pleased to hear him setting out why
7:37:37 > 7:37:41the rights he is talking about will be protected after we leave the EU.
7:37:41 > 7:37:46Does he agree that these sorts of inconsistencies will only further
7:37:46 > 7:37:50the interests of lawyers rather than our constituents Avenue we leave the
7:37:50 > 7:37:58EU?This is about how we as a house in sure there is a corpus of law
7:37:58 > 7:38:00which is consistent and serves the interests of our constituents and
7:38:00 > 7:38:07can be considered in a consistent way. My personal view is the remedy
7:38:07 > 7:38:12to this inconsistency is not for us to bring the charter to apply to all
7:38:12 > 7:38:17law which you could do, the reason why that would work is it will bring
7:38:17 > 7:38:24confusion in respect of the existing European convention. Instead, the
7:38:24 > 7:38:30time has come, not today, tomorrow, but in some time in the near future,
7:38:30 > 7:38:39to look at granting is a corpus of rights to sit the EC H R, extending
7:38:39 > 7:38:43the Human Rights Act which will allow citizens to apply their rights
7:38:43 > 7:38:53against any law in this country. That is the logical next stage.He
7:38:53 > 7:38:59and I may be the only two people on these benches who do believe in
7:38:59 > 7:39:13having a written constitution. Would he agree with me that the number in
7:39:13 > 7:39:18any event is small? In the interim, it would be a good step if the
7:39:18 > 7:39:22rights that we identify as a result of the Government's analysis is
7:39:22 > 7:39:30coming out of the charter, in due course should be added to the HRA in
7:39:30 > 7:39:38is a way that enables that degree of entrenchment?That is why I
7:39:38 > 7:39:43completely agree. What has been a benefit from this debate is we have
7:39:43 > 7:39:46identified this third category of rights which we recognise across the
7:39:46 > 7:39:51House. There is a real public benefit in adding to the corpus of
7:39:51 > 7:39:55rights that British people can enjoy. We should be looking to see
7:39:55 > 7:40:01whether they can be added to the humans right acts. If we are inching
7:40:01 > 7:40:05our way towards that written constitution, retaining the charter,
7:40:05 > 7:40:09which is a proto- constitution, on the basis of an amendment debated in
7:40:09 > 7:40:15this Chamber, is entirely the wrong way to go about it. For that reason,
7:40:15 > 7:40:25I am supporting the Government.I rise to support the bill as well as
7:40:25 > 7:40:32new clause 16. I want to establish that I am not cavalier about the
7:40:32 > 7:40:37concept or subject of human rights. They underpin a free and just
7:40:37 > 7:40:42society and all Parliamentary be vigilant. The debate underscores the
7:40:42 > 7:40:48significance of that. There is a fundamental difference between human
7:40:48 > 7:40:54rights and human rights law and stop the charter is one way to attempt
7:40:54 > 7:41:00promoting rights and poorly framed. Contrary to what the honourable
7:41:00 > 7:41:04member from Bristol North West said, I don't need the charter of
7:41:04 > 7:41:08fundamental rights to be proud of my country. There are a number of
7:41:08 > 7:41:12reasons why I believe the corporation into our law would be
7:41:12 > 7:41:17the wrong thing to do. The first of those concerns the scope of the
7:41:17 > 7:41:22charter's application. The provision to this charter is addressed to the
7:41:22 > 7:41:28institutions bodies of visitors and agencies and only when they are
7:41:28 > 7:41:34implementing union law. Needless to say, once we leave the union, we
7:41:34 > 7:41:38will not be a member state. As has been observed, many of the charter
7:41:38 > 7:41:43rights are necessarily contingent upon our membership and still more
7:41:43 > 7:41:49are directed not towards member states but towards the union
7:41:49 > 7:41:55institutions and their policies. Let us follow the logic that we should
7:41:55 > 7:41:59be incorporating the charter into UK law and how will this work? There
7:41:59 > 7:42:05are two possible scenarios. If we were to approximate the charter's
7:42:05 > 7:42:09original application, we could amend it in a way that is applied solely
7:42:09 > 7:42:15to EU law. This is a substance to the amendments in question. That
7:42:15 > 7:42:20would lead to a situation where by some parts of UK law will be subject
7:42:20 > 7:42:26to a different regime and others. That seems a recipe for confusion
7:42:26 > 7:42:33and disaster. We can amend the charter summit increases is scope to
7:42:33 > 7:42:37cover all laws and institutions. Award hazard a guess that was not
7:42:37 > 7:42:42what our constituents were thinking of when they voted for Brexit.
7:42:42 > 7:42:45Either route would complicate the relationship between the charter and
7:42:45 > 7:42:52the Human Rights Act. All transposed EU law will become subject of the
7:42:52 > 7:43:00Human Rights Act anyway. To have two paralleling places contradictory,
7:43:00 > 7:43:04covering the issues in the same sphere of application would serve to
7:43:04 > 7:43:14undermine rather than a polled the rule of law. Charter rights and
7:43:14 > 7:43:18social rights are so flexible and contested that they are vulnerable
7:43:18 > 7:43:22to an infinite number of interpretations and that is the
7:43:22 > 7:43:26problem. When working for my honourable friend come he would
7:43:26 > 7:43:32point to quote that was on point. Nor is the liberty of the power of
7:43:32 > 7:43:36judging is not separate from legislative power. If you would
7:43:36 > 7:43:39joint legislative power, the power over the life and liberty of the
7:43:39 > 7:43:45citizen would be arbitrary for the judge will be the legislator. Where
7:43:45 > 7:43:51we failed to legislate, the judiciary. Gaps. Rights has been the
7:43:51 > 7:43:54objections of so many of our constituents for seven years.
7:43:54 > 7:44:02Rightly so. In at least two cases, British judges have gone beyond ECJ
7:44:02 > 7:44:06case law, relying on the charter to do is apply acts of parliament.
7:44:06 > 7:44:13Parts of the state... Protecting embassies from immunity to
7:44:13 > 7:44:20employment law claims was set aside. Part of the Data Protection Act was
7:44:20 > 7:44:27overridden. As my right honourable friend the member for Devon West
7:44:27 > 7:44:33said, this is a matter for this house to determine. Deep ECJ has
7:44:33 > 7:44:40overruled part of the powers by reference to the charter. -- the
7:44:40 > 7:44:50ECJ. This is no small point. The process of striking down legislation
7:44:50 > 7:44:52under the charter goes beyond the scope of the Human Rights Act which
7:44:52 > 7:44:57allows the courts to show incompatibility where there is a
7:44:57 > 7:45:02need. There is one final reason why we should resist the incorporation
7:45:02 > 7:45:07of the charter which is that to do so would likely be superfluous.
7:45:07 > 7:45:12We've heard from the front bench you have struck a note that the
7:45:12 > 7:45:16Government will provide detailed analysis of how each charter will be
7:45:16 > 7:45:20addressed in a memorandum on the 5th of December. If we are to go want to
7:45:20 > 7:45:25address what has been referred to as a third category of rights, rights
7:45:25 > 7:45:27not listed in the European convention and not rendered
7:45:27 > 7:45:33redundant by leaving the EU, this process should be led by other
7:45:33 > 7:45:36elected House of Commons. This may be the right thing to do and we are
7:45:36 > 7:45:39all clear that retaining the charter is not the right vehicle by which to
7:45:39 > 7:45:45do it. Lest we forget the British public have no idea that the charter
7:45:45 > 7:45:51would evolve in the way that it has stop at goal which states the
7:45:51 > 7:45:56charter reaffirms the rights, freedoms and principles recognised
7:45:56 > 7:45:59and makes those rights visible but does not create new rights or
7:45:59 > 7:46:07principles. We have" and heard Peter Goldsmith in 2004 who said the
7:46:07 > 7:46:10charter is a consolidation of existing rights, not mind the human
7:46:10 > 7:46:16rights in country. In 2008, the second reading, that the EU
7:46:16 > 7:46:22Amendment Bill, David Miliband told the true two records existing rights
7:46:22 > 7:46:27rather than creating new ones. The new legally binding protocol
7:46:27 > 7:46:31guarantees nothing in the charter extends the ability of any court to
7:46:31 > 7:46:36strike down EU law. Our constituents were given an inaccurate prospectus
7:46:36 > 7:46:41of how the charter would evolve. I accept one made in good faith that
7:46:41 > 7:46:45the time. In light of this, my position is clear that the charter
7:46:45 > 7:46:50should not be incorporated into our law, to go on evolving in this way
7:46:50 > 7:46:54according to the whims of unelected judges. We have the opportunity
7:46:54 > 7:46:58tonight to reassert one final time what this house has been told that
7:46:58 > 7:47:02the best part of 18 years. That the rights under which we live should
7:47:02 > 7:47:07have their origin this house and ultimately in the British people,
7:47:07 > 7:47:20under whose authority we serve.I am pleased to follow my honourable
7:47:20 > 7:47:24friend on what is his debut at committee. I'm sure we will be
7:47:24 > 7:47:29treated to much more thoughtful contributions based on his
7:47:29 > 7:47:36experience as a lawyer. I apologise that I will be adding to the chorus
7:47:36 > 7:47:41of lawyers right now. There has been an abundance of lawyers. This has
7:47:41 > 7:47:49flushed us out. I have is that it with nothing but admiration and
7:47:49 > 7:47:54respect for the very learned had interventions and right honourable
7:47:54 > 7:47:59members from both sides of the House. Their attitude of trying to
7:47:59 > 7:48:12improve this bill, which has been a welcome from the Solicitor General.
7:48:12 > 7:48:17This is not about whether the charter is in or whether it is out.
7:48:17 > 7:48:23It is not about being pro-rights or anti-rights. For me, this is about,
7:48:23 > 7:48:28whether a bill, which is designed to provide legal certainty on Brexit
7:48:28 > 7:48:35stay will achieve that aim. Or, instead, create what I think will be
7:48:35 > 7:48:41a feast for lawyers, borne out of legal uncertainty. I think, the
7:48:41 > 7:48:47purpose of this bill, is to avoid the overnight evaporation of EU law
7:48:47 > 7:48:53on the date of our excellent, by providing certainty, by providing
7:48:53 > 7:48:59predictability for businesses, individuals and foreign governments
7:48:59 > 7:49:03who are dealing with Britain after we leave the EU. We want to resolve
7:49:03 > 7:49:12questions rather than create them. But, I do have real concerns about,
7:49:12 > 7:49:17and say this with extreme aspect with some of the amendments that
7:49:17 > 7:49:25have been tabled. They raised many areas of confusion. How will the...
7:49:25 > 7:49:29Especially when we have right to in both the Human Rights Act and the
7:49:29 > 7:49:35charter. Whether interpreted by different courts, where we have
7:49:35 > 7:49:40identical right interpreted in one way by the Strasbourg court, and
7:49:40 > 7:49:45those same right interpreted in a slightly different way by the
7:49:45 > 7:49:53Luxembourg court. That only provides for inconsistency and conclusion. --
7:49:53 > 7:50:03confusion.
7:50:08 > 7:50:15More concerning for me, is the confusion created around the
7:50:15 > 7:50:20remedies provided in the charter, and the role of the Supreme Court
7:50:20 > 7:50:25and the European Court of Justice. Under the Human Rights Act, which I
7:50:25 > 7:50:29must say, is a document which contains and protects people in
7:50:29 > 7:50:35many, many ways. There is the right to a fair trial, life, private life
7:50:35 > 7:50:42and family life, to be free from dissemination. That is a document of
7:50:42 > 7:50:48which we should be proud of in Britain. Under that act, the Supreme
7:50:48 > 7:50:51Court can make declarations of incompatibility in the event of a
7:50:51 > 7:50:57breach. That power is limited as a reflection of the role of the
7:50:57 > 7:51:00Supreme Court in our Constitution, and be particularly fine balance
7:51:00 > 7:51:08between the judiciary and the legislatures. That's hard run
7:51:08 > 7:51:15principle of parliamentary sovereignty. It is beaky foundation
7:51:15 > 7:51:21of our country's governance, that in this space, in this elected chamber,
7:51:21 > 7:51:25we'd, elected representatives, have the final say on what rights people
7:51:25 > 7:51:31are afforded. On what restrictions they are subject to, on what
7:51:31 > 7:51:35remedies they can vote, on what response policies they owe. That is
7:51:35 > 7:51:41what our job is here in Parliament. We are elected, we are subject to
7:51:41 > 7:51:43transparency, we are accountable, and we can be kicked out if
7:51:43 > 7:51:51necessary. That is compared to judges, who are, unelected, of
7:51:51 > 7:51:57course, experts and robust in their integrity, but often unknown and a
7:51:57 > 7:52:02wave from the glow of publicity, not answerable directly to the public in
7:52:02 > 7:52:09the way that elected representatives are. That is the importance of
7:52:09 > 7:52:14parliamentary sovereignty. That judicial deference and shrine --
7:52:14 > 7:52:19enshrined in and running through the Human Rights Act is important. So
7:52:19 > 7:52:30that only in cases of... Will UK courts make such a declaration, in
7:52:30 > 7:52:33the event of a declaration of incompatibility, there is no
7:52:33 > 7:52:38obligation upon Parliament or the Government to agree to make changes,
7:52:38 > 7:52:43but often, it will respond by amending legislation to edge up
7:52:43 > 7:52:46tarmac align the judgment in the courts, for example under section
7:52:46 > 7:52:52ten of the Human Rights Act. That's fine balance is important, to ensure
7:52:52 > 7:52:56the ultimate accountability of rule-makers and legislate tours,
7:52:56 > 7:53:03which we are here precisely to do. And, I do believe, that the
7:53:03 > 7:53:07principle of parliamentary sovereignty could be undermined by
7:53:07 > 7:53:12the remedy in the charter, which is of the supplying statutes, as we saw
7:53:12 > 7:53:21in the case... In the Supreme Court last year, where the effect is that
7:53:21 > 7:53:27the court can actually disregard the relationship between the leader Sri
7:53:27 > 7:53:38-- between the judiciary and the legislature.
7:53:41 > 7:53:45Further uncertainty is caused by questions around the potential
7:53:45 > 7:53:49horizontal application of the charter, that being as between
7:53:49 > 7:53:53individuals rather than between the states and the individual, which is
7:53:53 > 7:53:58a position under the Human Rights Act. And questions persist on its
7:53:58 > 7:54:03application to, and I quote, anything within the scope of EU law,
7:54:03 > 7:54:11as opposed to when implementing EU law. For me, those principles are
7:54:11 > 7:54:14not yet clarified, and would only create more confusion if the tabled
7:54:14 > 7:54:20amendments were to be passed. So, this is not about being in favour of
7:54:20 > 7:54:25right or against them, this is about providing a workable regime, not one
7:54:25 > 7:54:31fraught with confusion, and at odds with fundamental principles. And
7:54:31 > 7:54:35lastly, we mustn't forget that this charter wasn't actually originally
7:54:35 > 7:54:41intended to be the source of rights for the UK. It was meant to merely
7:54:41 > 7:54:46codified existing rights. As an instrument of the EU through its
7:54:46 > 7:54:54interpretation of the ECJ.Very grateful to my honourable friend. I
7:54:54 > 7:54:57think I agree with everything that he said so far. Does she agree with
7:54:57 > 7:55:00me that it would nevertheless be possible to put these right under
7:55:00 > 7:55:12the umbrella of...I do agree in principle that would be possible,
7:55:12 > 7:55:21but I'm would also break, he has just entered the chamber, who put
7:55:21 > 7:55:25eloquently the fact that actually there is no such standards need for
7:55:25 > 7:55:29that do occur, because those rights are protected in existing legal
7:55:29 > 7:55:35frameworks or common law. Just going back to the point that I was making
7:55:35 > 7:55:40which is that the charter is an instrument of the youth, of allowing
7:55:40 > 7:55:46the activism of the ECJ. It is a mechanism intended to ensure the
7:55:46 > 7:55:51supremacy of EU law in national legal orders. That is made clear in
7:55:51 > 7:56:01the preamble, and also in a recent case in which it was made clear that
7:56:01 > 7:56:06the primacy of EU law was the priority. So, if we are truly
7:56:06 > 7:56:10leaving the EU, it's no longer make sense for us to be bound by a
7:56:10 > 7:56:18document which is furthering further EU integration. In conclusion, I
7:56:18 > 7:56:21appreciate the constructive attitude of all colleagues in attempting to
7:56:21 > 7:56:27assist the Government in improving this bill. But, I do gently caution
7:56:27 > 7:56:33against the risks presented by some of these amendments. The British
7:56:33 > 7:56:38people last year voted to restore sovereignty to UK courts, to return
7:56:38 > 7:56:43supremacy to our judges, because they trust our legal order. Why do
7:56:43 > 7:56:50they trust our legal order? Because, the centuries, since 1215 and Magna
7:56:50 > 7:56:56Carta, this country has been the home of civil liberties and human
7:56:56 > 7:56:58rights, protecting the vulnerable against excessive power. That is it
7:56:58 > 7:57:02addition of which we are proud. That will be protected under this
7:57:02 > 7:57:12Government.It is a huge or nice to have listened to this debate. -- it
7:57:12 > 7:57:16is a huge honour to have listened to this debate. To have listened to so
7:57:16 > 7:57:20many contributions from so many colleagues. I just want to rise on
7:57:20 > 7:57:25the subject of the fundamental rights to personal data and data
7:57:25 > 7:57:30protection, an issue which I raised in my first speech on the matter,
7:57:30 > 7:57:35because data is a really in potent issue. We are in the middle of a
7:57:35 > 7:57:37digital revolution, we are in the middle of the fourth Industrial
7:57:37 > 7:57:43Revolution, the ability to rose as fast quantities of data is vital to
7:57:43 > 7:57:48our tech sector, our digital sector, and it is driving the future of
7:57:48 > 7:57:53medical research. If we want the opinion to play a world leading
7:57:53 > 7:57:59role, we need to continued to be able to exchange data easily with
7:57:59 > 7:58:05other parts of the world. In our country, privacy has an large,
7:58:05 > 7:58:10through history, been protected, but that has not always been the case in
7:58:10 > 7:58:14many European countries. Data protection and the right to have
7:58:14 > 7:58:18your personal data protected is a really treasured right, and so,
7:58:18 > 7:58:22Solicitor General, I would point out that this issue of data governance
7:58:22 > 7:58:31is not just a legal issue, but will be political issue, and therefore,
7:58:31 > 7:58:38we must leave no doubt that Britain intends to respect personal data.
7:58:38 > 7:58:45So, it is excellent that this Government has agreed that it will
7:58:45 > 7:58:48implement the data protection legislation. This is a highly
7:58:48 > 7:58:57complex directive, but it was not just agreed in some part of
7:58:57 > 7:59:02Brussels, it was led by a British liberal who sit in the House of
7:59:02 > 7:59:05Lords. It was led for the Conservatives by a British
7:59:05 > 7:59:10Conservative who announces me House of Lords, and was chaired by a
7:59:10 > 7:59:14British Labour MEP who still chairing the relevant committee, so
7:59:14 > 7:59:21Britain was very much involved in establishing that GDP. There is a
7:59:21 > 7:59:24technical difference between that GDP are and the data protection laws
7:59:24 > 7:59:39currently in the House. The GDP are's fast principle is the
7:59:39 > 7:59:41protection of data and it is important that we are seen to be
7:59:41 > 7:59:49given that same protection. It is in both sides' interest to give data
7:59:49 > 7:59:53adequacy, after all, Britain is responsible for over 10% of world's
7:59:53 > 7:59:57data flows, and over three quarters of those data flows are between
7:59:57 > 8:00:00Britain and the rest of Europe. They do need to maintain that data flow.
8:00:00 > 8:00:06This is a area that is continually evolving. They are looking at
8:00:06 > 8:00:11procedural law now and other areas in Europe. I wanted to, in
8:00:11 > 8:00:15particular in response to the member for Argyll & Bute, because he seemed
8:00:15 > 8:00:24to suggest that this Government is not somehow treating that data
8:00:24 > 8:00:29seriously. We are. And many said that the Government has said that
8:00:29 > 8:00:33they may want summing akin to a data adequacy agreement, that is because
8:00:33 > 8:00:43the youth, US data previously shield, which is just the current
8:00:43 > 8:00:47agreement, is not actually as stable as may be as if we had data adequacy
8:00:47 > 8:00:52as part of our free trade agreement. There are many different ways that
8:00:52 > 8:00:56this could be agreed and let's make sure that we keep all of those
8:00:56 > 8:01:01options open. So, will what I have given year in a state example, I
8:01:01 > 8:01:06hope an example of an area where rights are continually above link,
8:01:06 > 8:01:11and in this rapidly changing world, the rights that we each have, will
8:01:11 > 8:01:16need to continue to evolve, and that is why I think it is right, after
8:01:16 > 8:01:20listening to today's debate, that we should not cut and paste that
8:01:20 > 8:01:27fundamental Charter of rights into our British law now. We should take
8:01:27 > 8:01:29the matter seriously, and what we are being promised today, is that
8:01:29 > 8:01:36within the next two weeks, by December the 5th, the Government
8:01:36 > 8:01:41will go through every single one of those rights, and list where they
8:01:41 > 8:01:46are already in British law, and if they are not in our law, show us the
8:01:46 > 8:01:50process by which they will become so, and on that basis, I think we
8:01:50 > 8:01:57will create a more stable agreement going forward for the future, to
8:01:57 > 8:02:01protect, not just the rights of today, but the rights of tomorrow
8:02:01 > 8:02:08too. That is why I will vote against the amendment that has been tabled,
8:02:08 > 8:02:18tonight.
8:02:18 > 8:02:24Thank you, the debate on this has been held in a collegiate
8:02:24 > 8:02:27atmosphere. We are focused on the specific rights and roles of a
8:02:27 > 8:02:35number of quite technical legal points, but overall one thing that
8:02:35 > 8:02:41stands out to me was a debate on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am
8:02:41 > 8:02:45not convinced by the Government's cakes. We were sold by his idea that
8:02:45 > 8:02:49there should be a copy and paste piece of legislation, and it turns
8:02:49 > 8:02:53out not to be so. We are told that there was no need for the Charter of
8:02:53 > 8:02:58Fundamental Rights and if that is the case, then what is the harm in
8:02:58 > 8:03:03retaining it. Those rights are incredibly important, rights to
8:03:03 > 8:03:09privacy, personal data, freedom of expression, education, health care,
8:03:09 > 8:03:17children, the elderly people many many rights within that Charter, and
8:03:17 > 8:03:20I believe that it is important that we keep that within our legislative
8:03:20 > 8:03:26framework. As the Deputy Speaker, we have had a long day, and it may well
8:03:26 > 8:03:31be the case that we have had a large number of divisions. I am certainly
8:03:31 > 8:03:36glad that the Government have committed to publish it by the 5th
8:03:36 > 8:03:40of December, an analysis of each of these rights within the charter. I
8:03:40 > 8:03:45think that we need to tell the Minister that we are watching
8:03:45 > 8:03:47extremely carefully, that publication, as well as the
8:03:47 > 8:03:52publication of cause of the Brexit select committee and all of those 58
8:03:52 > 8:03:55impact assessments, sector by sector, which of course, has to
8:03:55 > 8:03:59happen before the end of the member, before the end of this calendar
8:03:59 > 8:04:08month, as it was the order agreed in the House. Given that we have that
8:04:08 > 8:04:10commitment, and given that we will be having a substantive vote, and
8:04:10 > 8:04:15stand on amendment 46, on the principle of the Charter of
8:04:15 > 8:04:20Fundamental Rights, I would therefore seek to withdraw my new
8:04:20 > 8:04:23Clause 16, because we have got quite enough divisions going on this
8:04:23 > 8:04:28evening.
8:04:28 > 8:04:34If is at your pleasure that new pool 16 be withdrawn? We now come to new
8:04:34 > 8:04:43clause 79. The question is that new clause 79 B read the second time. As
8:04:43 > 8:04:48many as are of the opinion, say aye. To the contrary, no. Clear the
8:04:48 > 8:04:57lobbies.
8:06:08 > 8:06:12Order. The question is that new clause 79 B read a second time. As
8:06:12 > 8:06:25many as are of the opinion, say aye. To the contrary, no.
8:17:20 > 8:17:38Order. The ayes to the right 295. The noes to the left 314. The ayes
8:17:38 > 8:17:48to the right 295. The noes to the left 314. The noes have it. We now
8:17:48 > 8:17:59come to amendments 46. The question is that amendments 46 be made, but
8:17:59 > 8:18:14about opinion say aye. The contrary say no.
8:20:17 > 8:20:32Order. Those to the opinion that the payment 46 be made, those who think
8:20:32 > 8:20:43aye say aye. The noes say no.
8:30:39 > 8:31:00Order. The ayes to the right 301. The noes to the left 311.
8:31:02 > 8:31:18The ayes to the right 301. The noes to the left 311. The noes have it.
8:31:18 > 8:31:28We now come to clause. The question is that this clause of the Bill,
8:31:28 > 8:31:40those of the opinion, say ayes. We now come to amendments 336. The
8:31:40 > 8:31:47question is that amendments 336 be made. Those about opinion say aye.
8:31:47 > 8:31:59The contrary, no. Clear the lobbies.
8:34:08 > 8:34:11The question is the amendment be made. As many as are of the opinion,
8:34:11 > 8:34:15say aye. To the contrary, no.
8:39:59 > 8:40:10Lock the doors.
8:45:06 > 8:45:27Order, order.The eyes to the right, 296, noes to the left, 315. -- ayes.
8:45:27 > 8:45:39The ayes to the right, 296, noes to the left, 315. The noes have it.
8:45:39 > 8:45:50Unlock. We now come to amendment 139. The question is that amendment
8:45:50 > 8:45:53139 be made. As many as are of the opinion, say aye. To the contrary,
8:45:53 > 8:46:08no. The. Clever lobbies. -- clear the lobbies.
8:47:29 > 8:47:42Order. The question is amendment 139 be made. As many as are of the
8:47:42 > 8:47:53opinion, say aye. To the contrary, no.