21/11/2017 House of Commons

seriously. -- we have now had a

meeting. It is unconstitutional, and

we will take extreme action if a

British citizen is being tortured.

Order. Ten minute rule motion. Huw

Merriman.

Mr Speaker. I beg to move

that lead be me to bring in a bill

to provide automatic other

compensation. My bill will ensure

that passengers on trains, flights

and other domestic transport systems

automatically receive in the bank

account the telly and we pay

compensation due to them without

further having regard to write and

apply for them. The for reclaiming

refunds for delays is complex and

cumbersome. -- the mechanism for

reclaim it. As we found with Reiner,

the mechanism is often not explained

correctly or at all to passengers.

Technology should been listening to

need -- should be listening the need

for passenger confusion. This bill

should apply to trance, Ferraris and

other paid motor transport. First,

we will turn to rear. I take the

train daily to London. Last, nearly

67 million real journeys were

cancelled or significantly late.

This can lead to lost output,

financial output and -- financial

hardship and stress. To get

compensation would incentivise the

trainer operators and Network Rail

to prevent these issues from

occurring in the first place. This

would increase our nation's

productivity. Whilst a number of

steps have been taken in the last

year, including strengthening

consumer rights act of 2015, the

introduction of delay we pay 15, for

the Southern, and new franchises,

only one third of rail passengers

owed compensation make a claim.

Network Rail currently makes

payments to train operators for all

delays which it has caused for track

and infrastructure failures.

However, if only one third of the

passengers experiencing these delays

claimed for it, the remainder must

be retained for by the train

operators. My bill would make the

train operators to ring fence this

excess. It would have every

passenger to touch on and off the

train. Having preregistered account

details, the passenger would

automatically receive compensation

under bank account in the day they

were convenient. None of this should

be particularly complicated. Six of

the 27 train operators have certain

kinds of compensation for certain

passengers. Virgin Trains West Coast

offer it to passengers that book

directly, call the Thames Link and

CTC offer automatic compensation

season to pick -- forces ticket

holders.

Every passenger is entitled to

compensation. If the technology

exists, then it must be applied to

all. Where compensation is not going

to be passenger, the taxpayer funded

compensation comment from Network

Rail must be used by all train

operators to get us to place were

compensation is automatically

delivered to every passenger so

entitled. Let me now turn to

flights. The situation is arguably

worse with airlines, as the recent

tobacco with Ryanair demonstrated.

With flights being cancelled and

3000 passengers and left

out-of-pocket completely. However,

the company's website field to

mention compensation, mentioning

only it would comply with the EU

regulation. Unless the passenger

happens to be an expert, they would

not realise that this provides

compensation and assistance to

passengers in the event of being

denied boarding, cancellations,

delays and downgrading when flying.

It took the Civil Aviation Authority

to threaten enforcement besiegers

before Ryanair informed their

customers of the compensation

rights. This is not new ground. In

the last six years it has

successfully taken action against

another of airlines, including

Ryanair, for a range of issues

including non-payment of

compensation and providing limited

information for passengers. All of

this can be avoided. Putting the

onus on the airline to calculate

compensation and credit it

automatically must be possible. For

security reasons, every airline must

know which flight a passenger is

picked on and know whether it has

been delayed or cancelled. The also

note the passenger account details,

or they can find it via the flight

booking agency. I picked this

contention to the chief executive of

British Airways when he was before

the committee last month. I asked

him why automatic compensation could

not be brought into his industry.

His response was to state as

follows, we will pass that cost onto

the consumer, like we always do. We

do operate as a charity. Mr Speaker,

this defensive response was

revealing. It suggests that there to

be a cost to pass on, many

passengers are not claiming for

delays or cancellations because they

do not know the full rights or find

it to cumbersome to claim. We do not

know. It seems, from the Chief

Executive of British Airways, we are

unlikely to find out without a

change of approach or a change in

the adulation. When I asked in what

proportion of passengers claim and

are repaid for compensation, he

remarked, I am not prepared to

disclose that. That is commercially

sensitive. Despite my repeated

requests as why this would give his

rivals the upper hand, no additional

information was forthcoming. The

previous week we transport select

committee had heard from the

Secretary of State for Transport

who, I should add does an excellent

job and I hope the adoption of this

bill by the Government will further

his assent to these guys. I asked

the Secretary of State on his views

on automatic compensation. The

Secretary of State took the view

that, this is not a one size fits

all industry. It is a big step for

Government to intervene to tell

businesses how to operate. If there

is a compelling reason to do so,

Government acts sometimes. Mr

Speaker, this summarises the

justification... Sorry, summarises

the situation. The airline industry

has to adopt a one size fits all

approach from rules driven by the UK

border agency, the several aviation

authority, the European Union and

other regulators. I believe they can

take this additional step and train

operators and those running our

ferries, trams and other modes of

transport can do likewise. The

compelling reason for parliament and

Government to do so is millions of

passengers are not only being

inconvenienced by delays but are not

being compensated. It is time for

those responsible to the passenger

to give something back without

further work from the passenger. I

thank the 50 honourable members and

right honourable members in this

place, many of whom are here this

afternoon, who have pledged their

support this proposal. It follows

the moral of approval across the

House when I asked the Prime

Minister to support this change.

There are many things that this

place will not allow us to deliver,

there is one change that the

consumer will benefit from us

working together across party in

parliament to change this approach.

Order, the question is he has lead

to bring in the bill. The ayes have

it.

Who will bring in the bill?

Maria Caulfield, Douglas Chapman,

Lillian Greenwood, Peter Kyle, then

Lake, Caroline Lucas, Tim Louden,

Ian Stewart and myself, sir.

Hugh

Merryman.

--Hugh Merriman.

Automatic travel compensation bill.

Second reading what day?

Friday the

16th of March. Friday the 16th of

March 2000 and 18. Thank you.

Point

of order. I have had so many people

come up to me and say, are you all

write or had you been abducted? I

should explain why I was not here.

It was my own incompetence and

nothing more than that.

Well, that

is very gracious, extremely welcome

and almost certainly unprecedented.

Unprecedented for the honourable

gentleman to be incompetent and

unprecedented for him to profess his

own, indeed. Nevertheless, we are

delighted that the honourable

gentleman is in fine freckle,

physically, mentally and doubtless

spiritually as well. If there are no

further points of order, the clerk

will now proceed to read the orders

of the do.

European Union withdrawal

bill committee. Now.

Order.

Order.

European Union withdrawal

bill.

We begin with new clause 16 it

will be convenient to consider other

classes and amendments as set out in

the selection paper. Clause five and

schedule one. Mr Chris Leslie to

move new clause 16.

Thank you and I

think as we start today three of the

committee stage of the withdrawal

bill, it is important to note this

group of amendments have a number of

things in common, largely to do with

the rights and freedoms that many of

our citizens have and have enjoyed

and taken for granted. Which could

well be in jeopardy or could well be

threatened if we do not get this

process rights. Of course, the bill

we are debating today it was

supposed to be merely a copy and

paste piece of legislation that we

were told there was no fundamental

changes of Government policy, it was

all very straightforward. We are

leaving the European Union and

becoming a freestanding United

Kingdom and we will simply cut and

paste all of the regulations and as

they stand into UK law. However, you

will notice, particularly in

schedule one of this bill, there are

a number of changes made that are

not transposed and in particular, on

the face of the bill in the quarters

we are discussing, the Government

have chosen not to bring across the

charter of fundamental rights. With

pleasure.

When I was sitting in his

place, Ministers, Labour Ministers,

told us the charter would have no

more influence in the United Kingdom

than a copy of the Beano were the

words used. It would not apply here.

Does the honourable gentleman not

look forward to a time when Labour

Ministers said will be a greater

approximation to truth?

It turns out

the Chancellor of fundamental rights

does have a value. It does have

effect within the UK and I will talk

about practical examples of where we

cannot just a brush this part of our

current framework because currently

there are many citizens, companies

and other organisations who

recognise the value that the charter

of fundamental rights... I will give

way in a moment.

I am grateful to my

honourable friend forgiving way. It

is not an example of the use of the

charter, the one given by my learn

it friend when he referred to the

case that the current Secretary of

State for exiting the EU brought

against the Government, in which he

talked about the charter. If the man

now thinks it has a use now, should

that seem use not now be available?

That man has stolen my punch line.

I

was going to build up to that. That

was the one example that I thought

would clinch the argument of all

people who should value the charter,

it should have been the Secretary of

State for Exiting the European

Union.

The case for repealing it

must be based on some harm that is

done. I have never heard anybody

describe any harm that the charter

is supposed to have done to any

public interest in this country.

Presumably like me he waits were

some examples to justify the

proposed change.

That is the case.

In fact, we may hear more and there

may be a different argument from

Ministers that the Government have

argued, do not worry about the

charter of fundamental rights, like

the honourable friend, it does not

have any effect, it is not

necessary, we can do without it. If

that is the case, why are they

deliberately exercising it from UK

law? -- exercising at? Why would the

include clause 16, which is on the

front page of today's package and if

they time to that, they can see that

this new clause 16 does not even

require that the fundamental rights

are retained. It simply says that

the Government should be required to

lay a report before parliament

within one month of Royal assent of

this act to publish a review of the

applications for removing that

charter...

I am grateful to him.

Would you not agree that one

advantage is we can export properly

the impact of losing the access that

the charter presents to you and

conventions, on disabled people or

the rights of the Child, which are

not truly incorporated into UK law

and will therefore be lost in the

form they are accessible through the

charter, as at present? Indeed, we

need to have the detailed analysis

from Ministers about the

consequences of deleting this

charter.

The are potentially wide

ranging. I want to pay tribute to my

honourable friend for her tireless

campaigning for children's rights.

She has amendments down on the order

paper and she will note that many

organisations campaigning for

children rights, the Children's

Society in particular, have a number

of anxieties about the deletion of

the charter of rights and the lack

of clarity that would exist in

respect of protecting children,

sometimes in vulnerable

circumstances. I will give way.

I'm

really grateful to my good friend

forgiving way. Is he concerned

whether it still children in the

world that are engaged in slave

labour, they are still being

trafficked, they are still working

as child soldiers, that the message

that this sends, that the UK wits

and we do away with rights that we

campaign for, that gave us the

universal declaration, is an

opponents, and needs the Minister to

come to the dispatch box and say

he's changed his mind? -- is an up

up audience.

You cannot get rid of

something that provides legal

protections without a statement from

ministers about the effect this

could have a laugh. I'll give way to

the honourable gentleman. -- that

this could have. I'll give way. One

of the most fundamental questions is

about the supremacy of the European

Court has overall parliamentary act

and which will be transferred,

effectively, with the amendments

proposed to the Supreme Court.

Would

he accept that with regard to the

protection of children, for

evidence, I was responsible for the

protection of children Bill back

minuted 70s and my gender equality

bill for international developing,

these are intrinsic Westminster

acts, we don't need the Georgia can

grow that, we do this ourselves. --

the charter to do that.

We want

legislation to be as good as it can

be. We currently have that extra

level of protection that the Charter

of fundamental rights provides. I'm

simply asking for, in this new

clause, and analysis from ministers

about what would happen to child

protection and many other flights if

we delete that from our current set

of legal protections. -- and many

other rights.

And grateful to my

honourable friend Rick giving way.

Does he agree with me that this is

not just about the application of

the Rabin Charter in British law, it

is a matter of the message we send

to the rest of the world? -- the

European Charter in British law.

There are not British rights, there

are universal human rights. That is

the message that this Government and

our continent should centre the rest

of the world, where people do not

enjoy these rights.

My honourable

friend makes a good point. If there

was a provision here to copy and

paste many of these general right

into the UK law, to preserve these

arrangements as they stand, the

Government would have a reasonable

case to make. There isn't that

alternative provision. It is simply

to delete the Charter of fundamental

rights. I did promise I would give

way.

First of all, when the Charter

of fundamental rights was

introduced, it was said that it was

simply restating existing rights

that were elsewhere in EU law.

Secondly, this argument that somehow

if we don't have rights given to us

by the EU, somehow we in Britain

cannot manage this ourselves, is

utter nonsense. We are signed up to

the EU Convention and have an

equality act of God. We are

signatory to a lot of UN treaties.

The -- have an equality act of our

own.

The difficulty is. It might

well be the case that over the

course of time the UK Parliament and

a statute could salvage many of the

protections. As we see in the bill,

at this point in time it is seeking

to delete the Charter of fundamental

rights from the point of that this

legislation. In other words, to

delete the Charter of fundamental

rights from the point of that when

of this legislation. In other words,

today, writes which we hope may

eventually -- to take away rights

which we hope. There is no guarantee

that we will get these again. I give

way.

As an old lawyer and somebody

that enjoyed jurisprudence, I wasn't

rights, from many different sources.

I'm an old common life I don't like

stuff -- common lawyer, so I don't

like stuff being written down too

much. I would need persuading about

this amendment because it's just

sort of have a report and it seems

awfully wet, if I may say so.

LAUGHTER

.

I was trying my best to say, let's

meet halfway, let's find a way of

forging a consensus. If she wishes,

there are other amendments on the

order paper today that say, let's

keep the Charter of fundamental

rights, I'll certainly be voting for

those. Obviously, she knows that I'm

in a spirit of God was. I would like

to find a way of reaching consensus.

-- in the spirit of consensus. I

massively impressed by her strength

and commitment to the protection of

rights in our country. I give way.

One is the differences between the

Charter for fundamental rights and

the European Convention of human

rights is article eight in the

Charter on the protection of

personal data. Is it not a

particular irony that the Secretary

of State for Brexit relies on

precisely this provision to sue the

British Government.

I think it's

probably time to elaborate on this.

The secretary of state sued the then

Home Secretary, with the older

members will know is now the Prime

Minister, to challenge the data

retention and investigatory Powers

act 2014 as inconsistent with EU

law. The Secretary of State himself,

right honourable member, use the

argument in court that the Charter

of fundamental rights needed to be

looked at. He was successful at that

point in time in the case, by the

way.

I think the honourable

gentleman forgiving way. I was on to

preserve a case of behalf of the

Government at the time, as a

Government lawyer. That brings me to

my blue worries about the Charter --

my real worries about the Charter is

that it's simply too complicated. It

doesn't add sufficient rights.

Everybody in this House is in favour

of the rights we have in the

convention, incorporated in English

law, we are keen on these. We don't

feel that the Charter as

sufficiently, as we found in

enormous amount of argument in that

very case, to take us much further.

I have no reason to in any way

question the honourable lady's

capabilities in court. In no way I'm

I think she was a loser at all in

this particular case. -- am I saying

that she was a loser.

LAUGHTER

. These are rights that are very

clear. Simple. Dignity, the vital

life, freedom from slavery, Parker,

the price of liberty, personal

integrity, privacy, protection of

personal data, freedom of marriage,

but, assembly, education, work,

property, asylum. The right to

freedom from discrimination in terms

of age, sexuality, solidarity and

the rights to fair working

conditions. Protections against

unjustified dismissal. These are

really simple and important rights.

And grateful for the honourable

friend giving way. I agree that we

need a -- we need more than a report

and these rights enshrined. Will you

agree with me around the rights of

older people that the limited

protections around older people,

particularly when we see so many

older people eating things like

social care, which they cannot get,

and it's so important that we get

these rights. -- so many older

people needing things like social

care.

The cruel sites that come from

the general case law that courts

will make conclusions about. The

Charter fills many of these gaps.

Regularly in some circumstances. I

will give way to my honourable

friend in a moment. Can I make the

case of protection of public health.

When the Tobacco Manufacturers

sought to challenge the Government's

introduction of plain packaging of

cigarettes, of course they hated

that idea, they wanted to stop it.

The Government, in defence of that

legislation, said, the Charter of

fundamental rights and its

protections for public health need

to be used in that case. The court

upheld the plain packaging

arrangements at the legislation in

the UK based very much on the

protections of public of rights that

were laid out in the Charter. A very

specific example of how this Charter

has benefited the rights and

protections of our citizens in this

country. I give way.

Thank you for

your kind reference to my amendment

151 on the order paper. Going back

to article eight and a case brought

by the narrow Secretary of State for

Exiting the EU, I wonder if he

agrees with me that if the Secretary

of State had not been able to rely

on Article eight, the likelihood is

that he would not have won at and

the honourable member that

intervened on him a moment ago would

have gone for the Government. It

shows that the Charter has impact.

If the honourable letter had won her

case, would she be here at all? --

honourable lady had won her case.

Maybe she would have got higher on

the judicial ladder.

LAUGHTER

. And grateful for you forgiving

way. The member from Banbury has

suggested that the right to

complicated for English law.

Will

the honourable member be sure that

these rights have been incorporated

into Scots law, with a separate

legal system is, and the super legal

systems of other member states, so

it is not to complicated in English

law?

The honourable lady makes a

point very well herself. Perhaps the

honourable lady would like a

response to that?

My point is not

that we do not approve of the

rights, nor that we think it was not

possible to make the case without

the Charter, but one of the Charter

was part of English law, since the

Lisbon Treaty, as good as possible

lawyers, whether acting for the

Government or anybody else, of

course we use whatever tools are

available, which in recent times

have included the Charter. My point

out, very clearly, is that we do not

the provisions in the Charter. It

can do one or two tiny things. Class

for example. Making it what you can

get back greater. -- making what you

can get back greater. But we were

riding possibilities the claimants

possibly. My case would be that it

is possible that we can do what we

need YouTube to protect human rights

-- what we need to do to protect

human rights within the law as we

have it in this country.

I hear the

honourable lady's case and it's the

same case as has been made

previously. She characterises these

things that the Charter can do as

small and minister. But they are not

necessarily small and minuscule to

our constituents, two members of the

public, the most honourable and

society that may depend on those

very rights provided by the Charter

in crucial circumstances. I should

make some progress but will give

way.

Thank you. Does he not find it

odd that we are transposing all of

EU law into our own lost but the

thing that underpins all of the year

was we are taking away? Taking away

the fundamentals, the foundations of

what is the body of the EU will. Is

this not a odd way of going about

things?

I do find it odd that

ministers say that somehow it

doesn't matter but then say that, we

must visit from the legislation.

They would almost in a ditch to

defend clause five, subclass of four

of the bill, which says that the

Charter of fundamental rights is not

part of English law on or after the

eggs a day. If it is still not

relevant, then why not have this

report, I know it's tedious to some,

but it is necessary to extend

whether these rights do or do not

offer protections and if it's so

ineffectual, then I don't understand

why we should delete it, if this is

supposed to be a copy and paste

exercise, as it transposes across. I

give way.

Article one two. Nothing in total

four of the charter... In excepting

that the United Kingdom has provided

first such rights in the national

law. The whole point, subject to the

protocol, is that it does not apply

in our national law.

I am not sure

that is the interpretation of the

courts and it was the reference to

the charter in a number of cases. In

fact, if the honourable gentleman

looks and listens later on to the

case that my honourable friend will

make in respect to amendments one

51, the free flow of data across

borders and the protections that we

have, the very backbone of our data

protection laws that those alongside

the general data protection

regulations are represented in this

charter of fundamental rights. That

is not me making that case, it is

the trade bodies and organisations

that fight for privacy rights. These

are many organisations and NGOs that

will be bombarded in members

opposite in their inboxes of the

protections these have. I want to

make more progress as there are a

number of amendments and need to

reference. It does seem to me, and I

hope this is not the case, that the

Prime Minister worried that the hard

line Eurosceptics, the hard line

Eurosceptics on her benches are

nipping at her heels, that she had

to throw them the bone. There was a

need to give them something and

therefore the charter of fundamental

rights was the scalpel that she felt

she had to throw in the direction of

some members opposite, not all

members opposite. I hope that is not

the case because in doing so a

number of significant protections,

data, children's rights, public

health or even the protections that

the Secretary of State himself has

used, these are rights and

privileges that we should guard. It

is our job to stand up and point out

when the Executive are trying to

potentially erode those rights. I

hope we can keep the charter but at

very least have a report. If I may,

I want to talk about and 62 which is

also relating to changes in rights

it is not pure copy and paste

legislation. It seeks to preserve

something known as the rule in our

legal system and it is a fundamental

principle of any democracy that

Government should not be above the

law, in European Union law this

principle is made known. It is a

piece of case law established which

has provided citizens with tools to

recover damages when their

Government falls short of legal

obligations. Now, in this case again

the Government are trying to do away

with those projections and I have

tabled the amendment and I note

other members have done so to ask

the Government what the effect of

removing this protection would be. I

will give way.

Isn't it right if you

look for example at the recent

prosecutions of the Government under

the clean air laws, this may not

have been possible if we did not

have this enshrined in the act and

the result of the bill as drafted is

the day before Brexit people have

the right to claim damages from the

Government but there is a danger

that the day after Brexit, they will

not have that right?

Yes, I think my

honourable friend makes the point

very well and we could all imagine

circumstances where Government could

be hard responsible for failure to

comply with the legal obligations.

It might well include failure to

comply with a quality directives and

those who suffer harm may not longer

have rights of redress and these are

rights that could exist not just in

the environmental field but also in

equal opportunities legislation. I

can see circumstances where, for

instance, if there were pensions

arrangements that same-sex couples

had rights to but sought to reclaim

their rights from arrangements that

might not have existed in the past

but want to recruit those rights to

those pensions, they would not have

the right to do so under the

arrangements. The other big one is

competition law. It relies on the

right to challenge the Government,

particularly when it comes to

procurement arrangement. Companies

that say we did not get the contract

for this or that reason, they may

well feel it was partly because they

were unfairly treated by Government

and under the arrangements we do

have projections so that contracts

can be led fairly, house-building,

transport, infrastructure, you name

it. There are a number of

protections and is safeguarding

there. Perhaps the biggest one that

has not been addressed by Ministers

where this lot may still be required

is to protect the rights of European

Union nationals after Brexit. We

will continue to have a number of EU

nationals who reside within the UK

after Brexit. What will happen if

their residency rights or

definitions change, if their

children are affected by changes of

arrangements with the Government, if

rights to claim those tax reliefs

are other things change in an unfair

way for them, as EU nationals? I

think they should be some level of

free dress against that. At the very

least, we need to hear from

Ministers a better justification for

the deletion of this protection.

I

thank my honourable friend forgiving

way at making some excellent points.

His amendment on this echoes my own,

however mine is different in terms

of time limitations. Would you not

agree with me that it is unthinkable

that the Government who threw this

bill said all rights and protections

would be guaranteed, is now seeking

to remove the ability to sue the

state at a time when it, as the

Government, is about to incorporate

hundreds, if not thousands, of

pieces of European Union law into

our UK law and it is basically

saying, if anything goes wrong with

any of that, you have no right to

sue us in the future.

Indeed, my

honourable friend is correct and she

has tabled a good amendment on this

issue. I think Ministers need to do

better and explain why they would

seek to wrench out of the

protections for our citizens this

potential right to redress

arrangement, particularly when this

may well affect the need for redress

that takes place before Brexit date.

This is not saying, this rule will

not apply to situations that take

place or a car after exit day. It is

actually commit the way the bill has

been drafted, which prevent that

right and redress even if the claim

itself relates to an occasion prior

to the exit day. Honourable members,

regardless of political parties,

should think about the constituents

and the cases we pick up, the

surgery discussions we have with

people who say, what can I do? The

Government is the large and powerful

organisation. This is a point the

organisation the members opposite

me, the size of the state. The

individual needs rights to protect

themselves and some of those

circumstances. This is something

that should transcend normal

political party issues.

As he will

know, the threshold for claiming

damages, the breach is to be

serious. It is a principle stemming

from EU jurisprudence. Is his

position that claims will be

interpreted under UK law, even in

the event of a lack of provision for

sufficiently serious on the UK

clock, or will it be UK courts will

be applying jurisprudence on this

event?

Would not be great if we were

having a proper debate about

retaining the protections, then she

may well have a case of increasing

or decreasing the level of damage

thresholds. That is not what we are

debating. We are debating the

deletion of this protection, that

right to redress, from our laws and

protections. I would happily discuss

with higher will it should be set. I

think there is a perfect debate that

needs to be had about that. We're

talking about the principle yes or

no whether it should be retained

within the legislation.

I am

grateful to my honourable friend

forgiving way. He suspects rightly

that the Government will say that

the charter from the UK will not

affect the substantive rights of

individuals already that they would

benefit from in this country. Does

he agree with me the problem is the

Government does not go on to say

what those substantive rights are?

And if we simply leave it to the

common law, it may not be this

parliament but future parliaments

could determine it is right to erode

those rights. That is why it is

important we stick with the charter.

I think we need to make sure that if

we are transposing legislation, it

is a true copy and paste and that is

not what we have got proposed. I am

not in favour necessarily of cutting

off our relations to the single

market, the custom unions, there is

lots of debates around the Brexit

choices we have before us. This is a

set of separate discussions about

the rights that our citizens and

constituents could have any post

Brexit scenario and we need to have

better justification to be convinced

that throwing these overboard at

this stage...

I think the honourable

member is making a very good point.

The point about this is, if you have

a directive, which we have accepted

into British law, we cannot have a

claim arising from that director

because he will have left the

European Union. That is simply not

fear. You would have had a claim but

because we have left and you seek to

make that claim after we have left,

you will not be able to do so. It is

right any new directive,... It is

this effectively is bad when you

have a right to take it away and we

have accepted the directive into

substantive law. I think that is the

point.

The very good argument that

the honourable lady makes that we

are transposing certain bits of

legislation into UK law but not

necessarily the protections to go

alongside that. That is essentially

the point that I think we need an

explanation for. Why not bring those

with us? I will give way.

Listening

carefully to his argument on

transposing it into British law, is

his case we should transpose the cut

and pastes or it should be adapted?

Article 39 talks about the right to

stand in the European Parliament.

Petition to the European Parliament

and article 45, freedom of movement,

all of which after we leave will no

longer be relevant.

I have been in

Parliament since 1997 on and off and

I find that sometimes when

amendments are proposed, they can

often be rebuffed for a number of

reasons. I often feel that there is

a technical deficiency, it tends to

be the last refuge of the Minister.

They wait now be of course arguments

that say, well, you need to cut and

paste the charter of fundamental

rights or the provisions but taking

in regard changes of the language

for new circumstances. Everybody can

recognise the need for consequential

subtle amendments to the

legislation. Let's not kid

ourselves, we are talking about far

bigger principles here. The

honourable gentleman I hope will not

diminish the importance of the

charter of fundamental rights and

those myriad of legal rights and

protections that we had and are so

very essential for the specific and

general reasons I have given. I will

give way one more time but I want to

make sure the members have a right

to speak today.

I find myself in

violent agreement with the

honourable lady on the issue and I

will be speaking to those points on

more detail later. I wondered if my

honourable friend shared my

concerns, going back to the charter,

that certain rights such as

environmental rights, consumer

rights and the rights of the elderly

in particular, which are not highly

developed in UK case law or any

other legislation, are gently being

thrown out with the backwater in

this removal of fundamental rights?

It is an important point. Our legal

system is one of the finest in the

world and it is a dynamic legal

system. It is not reliant on

statute. It can relate to cases as

it revolves and the charter, which

could be a charter within UK law,

according to this bill, if it were

transposed, could help to maintain

that protection of rights to fill

the gaps for those unforeseen

circumstances. We do not know what

our constituents will bring to us

from one week to the next. We may

find a constituent who has found

their rights have been deprived and

fairly. The need to have redress to

protect them potentially from

Government or from others and what

will we say to those constituents in

those circumstances in future in our

surgeries and discussions when they

say, you had the opportunity to

transpose and retain that charter of

fundamental rights and protections

and we said, well, it was a busy

day, did not notice what was going

on in the Chamber are lots of

complex things going on about

Brexit. This really matters and I am

delighted and proud that many

members on all sides of this house

are voicing those concerns and are

not prepared to just see these

rights swept away on a ministerial

say-so.

Charter of fundamental rights,

government report. The question is

that new clause 16 be read a second

time. Mr Dominic Grieve.

Thank you.

It is a great pleasure to follow the

honourable gentleman and if I may

say so, I don't take the view of the

member for Brock still in her

description of his new clause 16. It

seems to me that in bringing it

forward for consideration he has

accurately sought to stimulate

debate which is extremely important

on the consequences of getting rid

of the charter. I feel sometimes

there is a failure with some members

of this house to actually look at

what has been happening in our

society and country over a 40 year

period. Western democracies on the

whole have tended, in that time, to

develop the idea of rights. For some

honourable member this appears to be

anathema and make them choke over

their cornflakes. The simple fact is

it is a development I have always

welcomed and it seems to me it has

delivered substantial benefits for

all members of society and

particularly the most vulnerable. It

is also right that we have had a

long debate about how we reconcile

rights with the doctrine of

parliamentary sovereignty. It was a

Labour government which sought to

craft and reconcile the Human Rights

Act in trying to do that

reconciliation. Most people would

argue it has worked very well by

preserving parliamentary

sovereignty, enabling secondary

legislation to be struck down if

incompatible and with a measurement

of incompatibility were required.

But the truth is also that because

of membership of the EU, there are

some areas many would regard as

rates but which fall outside the

scope of the Human Rights Act and

the European Convention, which have

developed as a result of European

union membership. I appreciate that

leads to a double talking over the

cornflakes because not only has it

come from what some might regard as

a tainted source, I don't know why.

On top of that, it does have the

issue around it that it does not

have any regard for Parliamentary

sovereignty once in place. It has

the capacity to trump domestic laws

where there is an incompatibility

with domestically enacted laws and

the principles that have come from

the charter. It is part of the

supremacy of EU law to which we've

all been subject. It should not make

us ignore the benefits it has

conferred. Whatever we may think as

we talk about Parliamentary

sovereignty, I ventured the

suggestion that if you go out into

the street and ask people whether

they think equality law, largely EU

derived, has been a value to this

country, most people would give a

resounding note of approval. I'm

sure they would do the same in the

case recently in relation to the

ability of the sovereignty immunity

act to be this applied for the

purposes of enabling unemployment

case to be brought against an

embassy that had ill treated one of

its employees. And of course as has

been stated, my right honourable

friend has availed himself of the

provisions of the charter and the

rates that the EU has conferred in

relation to questions of data

privacy and the way in which data is

handled.

Is he aware of simple

rights that many of us will have

used on behalf of a parent like

wheelchair accessibility at

airports? Write that came up in the

review that I did for the government

in terms of youth justice, making

courts child friendly so you are not

intimidating, for example a young

woman relating a terrible case of

sexual assault. These rights exist

as a result of the charter and we

should pay some respect to our

European friends for giving it to

us.

I plays great respect for the

European Union, the founding fathers

wished it to be based on principles

not just of the rule of law but of a

vision of human society that is one

I have no difficulty approving of. I

don't have any problem with that at

all. It worries me in the course of

this debate on Brexit and on our

departure from the EU that we seem

to be at risk of losing sight in

this massive up evil of venom I've

experienced. Especially in the last

week. It seems to me to have no

relation to reality at all and it

troubles me that in this up evil of

venom, these real aspects of

progress within our society are

overlooked.

I am most grateful to my

honourable friend who I listened to

with great care and interests. Could

he explain why the matters to which

he has just referred could not in

fact and are not in fact enacted in

UK law of the kind that they

describe, protecting the children,

gender equality, does he not also

understand that it is really

terribly important to remember that

what is implicit in this charter,

and he knows this is that it carries

the power to do supply enactments in

the case of the supreme court as is

already present in relation to the

European Court itself. He gives a

very good example in the merchant

shipping act of 1988.

I thought it

would come along at some point in

the debate. Of course my honourable

friend is right about that and I

know that he has spent most of his

career in this house agonising over

the issue of loss or diminution of

Parliamentary sovereignty and it is

not a matter to be neglected. If he

waits I will come on to that point.

In looking at that point, the

honourable gentleman has done the

right thing. We need to focus on

what is going to happen after we

left. My honourable friend is

correct. The laws but we have

enacted at the date of exit, as a

consequence of our EU membership and

requirements to a deer with the

charter, will remain in place. But

it is an interesting feature that

they will there after the

unprotected. They will not even, for

example, enjoy the special

protection which we crafted in the

Human Rights Act for other areas

which are of importance. One

solution might be that in due course

we think very carefully as to

whether there are other rights in

the European Convention on human

rights, heaven knows we have been

here before, which should enjoy the

protection the Human Rights Act

affords them. Where I do agree with

my honourable friend is it is a

slightly strange situation. We

should in leaving the EU, being done

for national sovereignty reasons, I

need to accept that to then say that

we are going to maintain

entrenchment of certain categories

of rates, protected in the charter

and give them a status even higher

than prohibiting torture under the

EC HR, might strike people as rather

odd. On that basis I am forced to

the conclusion that if we are

leaving the EU, as we intend to do,

the sort of entrenchment which has

previously existed is not

sustainable. It's an issue we will

need where to come back to this

house and consider how we move

forward. But in saying that, I think

this is a very big issue indeed. It

worries me that we are going to come

into a period when we leave in March

2019 where there will be a gap,

where areas of law that matter to

people are not protected in any way

whatsoever. It is no surprise that

NGOs have been bombarding MPs with

anxiety, I think it is misplaced, I

don't believe any of the members on

the front intends to diminish

existing rights but we are in danger

of two things. One is sclerosis that

the rights development will cease

and secondary, because they do not

enjoy any special status, which they

should, we will fail and there will

be occasions where we nibble away at

them and we discover they've been

lost. It is an urgent issue for

consideration by this house, very

shortly, after we leave. I give way

to my honourable friend.

He is

making a speech with his

characteristic intellectual honesty.

Nothing passes him by. But in that

spirit I wonder if he would agree

that the charter is not the solution

to incorporating the rights that so

many of us want to see incorporated.

Possibly the way forward is not to

vote for this amendment but continue

to put pressure on those on the

Treasury bench to ensure these

rights are protected in a modern and

suitable way the current world.

My

honourable friend makes a good

point. This amendment just asks for

a report. It is trying to

concentrate minds on an issue. When

we were debating last week. -- one

of the points I made on my clause,

still hanging, is that there may be

some ways in which we can provide,

even now, some greater reassurance

of the protection of rights in the

field of equality, even now as we

agree to leave as temporary measure

and we come back to this. I strongly

commend that they pay attention to

this. It's an issue that isn't going

to go away. If we don't not seem to

act then this idea starts to free at

the edges. It's not a place where I

would wish my party's reputation

would seem to be ignoring these

issues.

Mate I use an example of

very cash strapped services which

would not wish to be extending the

rights and the costs of services,

for example in the HK sector where a

couple that was split up because of

the age of one of the couple can

remain as a couple. And we imagine

in a time of cash-strapped services

that this is the sort of right that

might not necessarily follow on to

the lack of service users.

That is

covered by the Human Rights Act so

let's not get too worried. We also

have to face up to the fact that

some socioeconomic rights require

levels of cost and economic policy

decisions which are legitimate areas

for Parliament and government to say

that however ideal they might be, a

balance must be struck. That's why

I'm careful about the infinite

extension of rights because they are

by Yu Delu the importance and that

is a very important matter to keep

in mind. I'll give way to the

honourable gentleman.

Isn't one of

the problems with the charter and

its interpretation by the court but

because it is a very general set of

rights it can be extended by courts

and because unlike the EC HR it is

not compatibility, it is about

striking down acts of this

Parliament, it doesn't get that

balance right?

I would say this, this was one of

the anxieties when the charter was

enacted and is the reason for the

UK's so-called opt out. The opt out

is not the opt out because we are

bound by it. Just to take one

example which he will remember and

the case that was about prisoner

voting rights and the attempt to

invoke European Union law as a tool

to force the UK Government to bring

in Fort for prisoners, at least in

European elections. It caused a lot

of disquiet in Government as to the

possibility that this might be the

outcome of the court case. Indeed, I

went to argue on the Government's

behalf in the Supreme Court. They

did not happen. It was used as a

tool but it does not lead to that

outcome. Looking back over the

history of the charter, I have to

say that some of the fears were

expressed that it would be used for

an expansionist purpose by the

European Court of human justice in

Luxembourg. I do not think that

proved to be correct but we are

leaving the jurisdiction, unless we

have to stay in it for a

transitional purposes, and when we

are gone and it will be our own

supreme court in which I have

enormous confidence and our own

national courts would carry out that

interpretation. I do not want to

labour this point much further. I

simply want to say there is a really

important issue here for us to

debate about what happens to the

sort of rights which have come to us

through the charter and through the

European Union and cannot be ignored

and in the short term the Government

has got to think about this before

this bill has finished going through

this house.

I give way. I want to

make sure I have understood what is

being suggested. Is he suggesting

that there are some items in the

charter which are not already going

to be retained through the retention

principles of the bill which should

be retained and retained in the form

effectively of becoming amendment to

the age are eight, so they are

subject to them?

That could be the

solution but even if we do not have

time to have that debate, as we

highlighted in the question about

the instrument powers the Government

is taking to change law, some

comfort and reassurance might be

provided that there are some

categories of EU derived a lot that

could do with at least the assurance

that they would require primary

legislation to change. I think that

might go some way to providing

reassurance to some of the worthy

organisations who have been writing

to us that there is no malevolent

intent towards this important area

in which rights are developed.

I

give way. One of those areas. One of

those areas where European general

law principles do not cover

environmental law principles and

that was made clear to us in terms

from that dispatch box last week.

The charter does guarantee those

environmental rights, so does the

right honourable gentleman agree

with me that environmental

principles are one of the areas in

which this bill is deficient and

which our rights will be lost?

I

agree that environmental law is an

area that could do with the scrutiny

that I have been describing. I am

mindful that might right honourable

friend wants me to give way.

What he

was saying, he seems to be a very

useful suggestion. Is he suggesting

as what is described as the triage

process, certain items that are

classed as rights, which are others

might be subject to further

resolution and the technical ones

left over?

Yes, that is what the

clause 55 sought to achieve although

it did provide the option is to

looking at technical amendments,

really technical, so I do not wish

to bird in the House with trivia. I

give way. -- burden the House.

He is

making it typically thoughtful

speech on the subject. We do the

right to see that there are

effectively treat categories within

the charter of fundamental rights.

Those rights that do not make sense,

director petition, those rights that

are already covered by the Human

Rights Act, right to life, property?

There is a third category of rights

within article 41 which are not

covered by our own jurisprudence and

legal system and might be so in due

course?

He is right about that. Yes,

he has correctly analysed what the

issues are on the swords of category

of rights on which we should be

focusing. I was hoping to make

progress.

I am most grateful to my

right honourable friend. Some of

these rights are going to be

inaugurated in different statutes,

and environment art and new

regulator will be created. Isn't

this a very, very broad brush

designed to deal with these detailed

issues. Would you give some

reassurance that the Supreme Court

isn't going to be left dealing with

more legal uncertainty rather than

less, because they are going to have

to adjudicate between two regimes.

One which is applicable from our own

statute and one where they might

have to declare an incompatibility

with the Convention rights, how is

this going to diminish legal

uncertainty which we know the

Supreme Court judges are looking

for?

If I understand the question,

it goes to the point I made a moment

ago which was that it ought to be

possible for some of these rights to

consider whether they should be

incorporated which provides

protection to those currently

provided in the Human Rights Act. I

think it is possible to distinguish

between what matters and what does

not. I think it is possible and an

exercise which this house and

Government will have to carry out.

It will give this some

consideration. Some categories the

House may think they are not

concerned about and they may want to

stick to children's rights, data

privacy, we will need to debate it.

No, I do not think it will create

uncertainty, any more than the Human

Rights Act will create uncertainty.

That is not an issue. I do accept

that this will take time to draft

and time to debate. It is not in

this current forum where we will be

able to achieve that. Can I now

turn...

I give way. I am very

grateful because on the point he is

making, I am in agreement with him.

It is right for this place to

consider and debate the issues the

right forum for doing it rather than

implementing a slew of rights in the

hands of the courts. Yes, there we

are in agreement that it is

inevitable and regrettable we face

the situation but that is why I have

to say that speaking personally

simply to convert the charter, which

has lots in it which is an

convertible and saying that it

should maintain entrenched rights

seems to me that in the light of

what we are debating to be an

impossibility and it is not

something that commend itself to me.

However, can I then moved to

slightly narrower issue? We have to

accept that in what we are doing, we

are going through a complex period

of transition. Forget about the

transitional arrangements we may be

negotiating with our European Union

partners, the truth is we are

creating a whole category of

transitional lot because by the

concept of retained European Union

law, we are doing some very strange

thing is indeed with our ordinary

legal principles. Clause 52 allows

European Union law to have priority

over domestic law and certain

circumstances. In fact, it allows

for the possibility of European

Union lot in active prior to Brexit

date being quashed for

incompatibility with retained EU law

that is being retained an exit day.

I simply make the point that,

leaving aside our membership which

we have ceased, this is an utterly

unique development in our legal

system. It has never happened before

and we are about to create a species

of domestic or semi-domestic law,

feral law I would not quite describe

it, which is going to have this

unique quality of being able to

override our own laws. Clause 63 is

going to allow judgments given

before exit date to be binding but

not in our Supreme Court, a matter

that my honourable friend and I have

been worrying about in the course of

the passage of this legislation.

Although there is going to be a loss

of jurisdiction, it is going to keep

a special status -- EU law is going

to keep the special status. It is

only intended to be temporary,

although how temporary is

speculative and of course I do note

that clause 53 that says this law

can be modified and still retain the

special status as long as the

modification, I assume, is not

dramatic that it is bread clear that

it should lose it. Different from

replacement. That I suspect is

because the Government knows the

situation may continue for decades

to come. And yet in the middle of

that, the charter is removed. And

leaving aside the other issues

concerning the charter which I have

touched on and I don't want to go

back over again, it creates an

unusual circumstance because

European Union law was always

intended to be purposive and one of

the purposes is to give effect to

the fundamental principles under

which the European Union is supposed

to operate. And yet what we are

doing is removing the bench mark

under which this law is supposed to

operate. Because the charter will no

longer be there, although

interestingly, and I think this is

an acknowledgement by the Government

of the problem they have got, they

then essentially in the next clauses

allowed the charter and general

principles of European Union law to

continue to be used for the purposes

of interpretation. It is very

unclear how all this in practice is

going to work out. That is why I

tabled my two principal amendments.

Amendment eight would allow the

retention of the charter. It

provides an easy route to ensuring

this legal framework is retained,

but for the reasons we have been

debating, there are serious issues

surrounding it and that is why I

personally think it is probably

wrong to seek to pursue that. Then

there is the question in schedule

one of what we do with general

principles of European Union law.

They are undefined as to what they

are but I assume that if the

Government is content to articulate

the existence of general principles,

it has done enough research to

establish two is an satisfaction

that general principles do exist and

indeed the fundamental principles in

the charter, but the very ones that

are not the ones that are going to

disappear on the day we leave. I

give way to my right honourable

friend.

Isn't the important part

about clause five that any future

act of this Parliament takes the

premise that if there is a problem,

this Parliament can sort it out

definitively and that deals with the

interest of all parties concerned?

My right honourable friend is almost

makes my case for me because he is

right that insofar as we want to

depart from anything, this house

once we have left the European Union

can do what it likes and anything we

can act there after, the supremacy

of European Union law is entirely

removed. We can do exactly what we

pleased except for we will be locked

in in maintaining quality with the

European Union lot. I will however

refrain from straying too far into

that area. Can I make some progress

for a moment? The question is, is

there some merit in keeping the

right to bring a challenge and using

general principles of European Union

bar? I have to say I would have

thought myself that there is. I

tried to work through in my mind the

importance of this.

-- the firstly, we may have retained

EU law which is deficient,

defective, does not operate

properly, or in a capricious or

unfair manner. It might be

disproportionate, for example. At

the moment, the only remedy unless

they bring in the Human Rights Act

would be to apply the law, and

somebody points out that it is

working badly.

I want to check

before he goes any further, is he

referring in his observations about

the schedule, to retained general

principles of EU law or new ones

post Brexit? If he's talking about

the retained ones I have a great

deal of sympathy. It seems to me to

import rights of challenge which

rely on later development would be

against the principle.

Absolutely

right and we are of one mind. The

principles which were seen to exist

at the date of excellent.

I'm not

surprised he and I are thinking

alike but doesn't he think in many

ways that his amendment ten should

be recast so that it changes the

drafting not to remove it but to

change the words to any of the

retained general principles. I'm

grateful to my right honourable

friend. Whatever merits I have as a

lawyer, I am not a parliamentary

draughtsman. I also gently point out

that in an amendment to get my

amendments -- in an effort to get my

amendments and they were drafted

with a wet towel around my head at

30 minutes past midnight the night

before the second reading, and I'm

sure they are capable of

improvement. It is very unusual for

an amendment to be accepted just

like that, particularly at committee

stage. There are ways in which this

can be approached and my honourable

friend, the Solicitor General, with

whom I've had an opportunity for a

chat, has made clear he thinks I

have been too Draconian in deleting

clauses one, two, three. On the

other hand, there are other clauses

which I find rather concerning. I

will confine myself to three at the

moment.

On this point of the

drafting, so far as I'm aware, the

government has absolutely no answer

to the extremely clear case my

honourable friend has made, about

the proper way of protecting these

cases in future. The obvious thing

is for the government to accept

these amendments today because on

reports they can come back and start

correcting the drafting amendments

to which I'm sure my right

honourable friend would be wholly

receptive. I would not welcome some

vague reassurances that they will

think about it and maybe come back.

The drafting can be corrected later

but the point is my honourable

friend is making need to be

confirmed today.

My honourable

friend makes a learning point and

highlights the difficulties which

government backbenchers have which

is the extent to which they should

accept assurances from the front

bench. That is depending on how

detailed the assurance doors and

whether it has some specificity to

it. I would have to say I think my

judgment on this as to whether I

might press it is dependent on how

specific the front bench can be in

recognising this is an issue that

has got to be addressed. Even if

there are areas that need to be

debated, this should be a core issue

about the ability to bring a right

of action in domestic law based on

the failure to comply when it

concerns the operation of retained

EU law and also, I have to say,

because the wave it has supremacy,

it must be possible that there might

be instances in which domestic law

would be altered. The government

cannot argue that is extraordinary

because they have enacted this

legislation in a way that allows for

the possibility of UK domestic law

being quashed. That will be for a

temporary period but I am unable to

understand how we get a situation

where the government is allowing for

the supremacy of EU law but removes

the principles which moderated, make

sure it cannot be abused, and in

those areas which were within

competence, provides a framework

under which government is

undertaking to operate unless or

until it repeals the bits of

retained legislation it is brooding

and. Before my honourable friend

gets up, the big argument against EU

law is it was either created by this

foreign body or inflicted on us so

we hatched to enact it -- had to

enact it. In those circumstances I

find it a bit or if we start arguing

that in view of where it comes from,

the possibility of knocking it on

its head because it does not comply

with its own general principles

should be abandoned.

I hope my

friend will not go down the rabbit

hole my other friend has suggested,

accepting this incongruous proposal

when it involves a fundamental

principle of constitutional

supremacy. My honourable friend does

understand that, I'm sure. He is

identifying a number of question

marks, but I suggest it would be

very wise and deeds to follow the

advice.

I understand that they are

putting together a package which

enables us move transition from our

presence within the EU to outside

it. That requires an adjustment to

his thinking about Parliamentary

sovereignty which the government has

been required to acknowledge. In

those circumstances it does not seem

to be pushing the boundaries further

and nor should it be seen as a

treasonable article when they are

the very thing which has presented

the EU turning into an even worse

tyranny. Listening to him, that is

how the impression has come across.

He sees it as tyrannical. I simply

make that point. I don't wish to

Labour it.

Isn't there an important

change once we leave the EU in that

the European Court of Justice would

not accept the Court of Human Rights

because it would not accept a higher

court could intervene with any

rulings and it needed protections

within a system that are provided

within our system.

My honourable

friend makes an interesting point. I

slightly question the extent to

which we've had clear evidence. I

know there has been a reluctance to

accept any higher authority. He is

right it is one of the reasons why

the charter came into being, to make

sure of compliance. But I think it

is a rather more hypothetical than

actual state of affairs although

such a problem might exist in the

future. In any event we are not

dealing with just matters covered by

the EC HR because of the very

reasons we were debating earlier,

and in the way in which the first

Amendment was moved by the

honourable gentleman, the member for

Nottingham East. I simply say to my

right honourable friend is that this

issue has got to be addressed. As I

said earlier, I recognise that if my

amendment is not as good as it might

be, and could be improved upon, and

if the government can give me a

adequate assurance which is beyond

vague assurance then I will be

content not to press amendment ten

to the vote. But this issue is not

going to go away and I always worry

with the government in this sort of

dialogue that one does not want to

be just soft soap off and then there

is a road crash when we come to the

report stage of this bill and I

cannot support the government. I

hope they can be resolved by

consensus. That is why I think the

issue we are debating today, a very

important one, but in the interim

the best solution is to use

something along the lines of what

I've done in amendment ten to make

sure principles of EU law can

continue to be invoked. As the

transition goes on. I assume that

much of it will disappear but I hope

it will continue to be relevant for

some time to come. I have three

other amendments. They are very

simple. They concern the wording in

clause five, any enacting or a rule

of law. Every single person I've

spoken to does not understand why

the words appear on the face of this

bill. Ultimately rule of law a rule

of common law and in so far as a

rule of common law is displaced by

statute, it will be displays of

itself by the courts. It does not

need to be spelt out in the

legislation. I draw some comfort

that the very distinguished lawyer

working in this building shares my

view it is incomprehensible as to

why it has been put in. I would not

necessarily rooted to the vote if

required to do so but I hope the

government might provide a positive

response and I'm grateful to the for

listening to me.

Thank you indeed.

It is a very genuine and real

pleasure to follow the Right

Honourable member who made his case

and the case sheared from many on

both sides extremely well and very

convincingly. I rise to move

amendment 46 which seeks to keep the

Charter of fundamental rights in the

EU retained law. It retains the

principles of the Frankie Bridge

ruling after pre-Brexit cases.

Amendments to eat five, 86 and 87

which make amendments to continue

for a transitional period and

Amendment 336 which makes provision

to retaining existing principles

within domestic law until the end of

the transitional arrangements. This

debate could probably have a few

more sentences in my stride before

taking an intervention but I

anticipate I will be taking

interventions. It raises some

fundamental principles on the

transition of EU law and on the

important role of this house in

holding the government to account

for its commitments. On that point

last week, the focus of the debate

was on the attempt of the government

to unravel the Prime Minister's own

pledges on the transitional

arrangements in her Florence speech

through the imposition of a defined

exit date for all purposes. The

Minister made a good attempt to

defend the indefensible and not

commit to the jurisdiction of the

Court of Justice of the European

Union applying throughout the

transitional period because it was

not the government line at the time.

It would have been helpful if number

ten had said what it has now said,

but the Court of Justice will have

jurisdiction throughout the

transitional period and then he