I have read that report, though it gave me a pain between the ears to do so. The noble Lord will understand that if he quotes in an approving manner from a report from another place, it is assumed that he shares that view. I am merely pointing out that the parallels that he made with the Danes and the French are very inexact and that the sort of action proposed in the quotation he gave would in fact lead to us leaving the EU, which is a perfectly possible eventuality, one that I know he and his colleague in UKIP strongly desire. I am merely suggesting that that is not the desire of the government Front Bench—they have made that clear—and that, apart from those two interventions, the Government’s draft of Clause 18 has had no support at all.
What remains is a rich banquet of alternatives to which I hope the Government will give serious consideration between now and Report and will choose the one most likely to gain a majority in this House and in another place. As far as the first is concerned, that looks unlikely to be the one that is on the table in the name of the Government at the moment. Since the noble Lord has clarified the Government’s intentions very helpfully, the Government could easily accept any of the following three options: losing Clause 18; accepting the clause that has been drafted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern; or making the addition that I have proposed but which leaves their own draft intact. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to this.
I find it almost unbelievable that the only reason given for including this clause is that a prosecuting attorney in an obscure case happened to use an incorrect interpretation of European law, which the judiciary then dismissed. If this Parliament legislates every time a prosecuting attorney makes a bosh like that and it is dismissed by the judge, we would be here every day of the year for about 20 years. Surely it is not a basis for legislation. It is simply unnecessary. However, I am perfectly prepared and very happy to give the Government the period between now and Report to consider carefully the options that have been put on the table, all of which are consistent with their own views. On Report we will return to this matter, as I am sure we must. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 57 withdrawn.
Amendment 58
Tabled by
European Union Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 May 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on European Union Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
727 c1669-70 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:07:01 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_745407
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_745407
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_745407