I simply do not accept the noble Lord’s characterisation of the matter. It is clearly the case that where consent, for example, was sought and not obtained, it would be necessary for the Minister of the Crown to address that, very clearly and specifically. There would be the opportunity, as there always is, for the devolved Administration to make their own views clear as to why they had declined consent. I do not believe that this is in any sense deceptive, misleading or a mirage. These are constitutional requirements that are adhered to and that will be adhered to. It would not be appropriate to introduce the sort of amendment moved by the noble Lord that would, in effect, tie the hands of this sovereign Parliament, so far as this exit process is concerned. Whatever view one might take about the merits of exit, that is neither here nor there. This is a constitutional principle with regard to the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom when it comes to legislate for the benefit of the entirety of the United Kingdom. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, and indicate that I would not expect to return to this matter at Third Reading.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Keen of Elie
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 2 May 2018.
It occurred during Debate on bills on European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
790 c2173 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2021-04-20 17:26:32 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-05-02/18050322000175
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-05-02/18050322000175
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-05-02/18050322000175