European Union Bill

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, with whom I agree on so many matters about the European Union. However, I regret to say that we must part company on the subject that we are discussing. My hon. Friend prayed in aid Professor Tomkins, who gave written evidence, which stated:"““The doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament is better understood as having its legal source in judicial recognition of political fact rather in the common law.””" I am not sure whether that is right. I do not see it as ““political fact””, rather as an important constitutional principle, which underpins—and has underpinned—all our dealings since at least the time of the Bill of Rights. Professor Dicey certainly gave voice to it. Professor Tomkins continued:"““Neither clause 18 nor any other provision in the Bill safeguards the United Kingdom from the further development of EU law by the European Court of Justice.””" That is true. The European Court of Justice is a highly judicially activist court, but it does not have authority in the UK directly through our membership of the EU. Its judgments have effect in the UK in interpreting European law because we have, as a Parliament, voted to pass that European law. That takes us back to whether we need to state that the UK Parliament is sovereign, and to whether the codification of a constitutional principle, which is well understood and to which the courts have adhered time and again, is necessary. I think not. However, I think that we should be more honest, realistic and straightforward about what really concerns us: the fact that we have too many laws from Europe. There are too many interventions in relation to the Human Rights Act, which causes too many problems and too often gives the sense to many of my constituents that the innocent are punished and the guilty go free. That is shocking. Time and again, constituents approach us to express those concerns.