I believe I have a right to reply; I have been corrected so many times today that I do not know what my rights are nowadays.
The Minister seems to believe that robust parliamentary scrutiny is enshrined in a sifting, negative procedure power. I do not agree, I am afraid. Parliament is being sidelined in this Bill. Indeed, I wonder when this radical, revolutionary, un-Conservative Government will seek to abolish Parliament.
On the assertion that the UK Parliament had no real say in EU law, that is the nature of the organisation. Law is made at the level at which it is considered, obviously. However—I made this point at Second Reading—some Parliaments in the EU, notably the Danish one, kept their Ministers on a tight leash. Ministers went to the Council of Ministers from the UK Parliament; if they did not represent the views of the UK Parliament, we have to look at them and their
record. The UK Parliament could have done the kind of scrutiny and accountability exercises that the Danish Parliament notably did; if it did not do so, that is the fault not of the EU but of the UK Parliament.
7.15 pm
Interestingly, the Minister seems to consider the provisions of Amendment 128 restrictions. So it seems that this Government think that anything that requires consultation, analysis, reason or parliamentary consideration is a restriction on their powers. That is very telling. The Minister also said that these amendments do not fit with this Government’s vision. I find that slightly chilling, to be honest.
The idea that relying on primary legislation would take decades is another old chestnut that we have heard at numerous points in the past four days of Committee. Why, then, did the Government promise primary legislation in 2018 in the then European Union (Withdrawal) Bill? Why did they claim that Brexit would give Parliament back control? Parliament now appears to be inconvenient to the Government’s vision. It is simply not true that relying on primary legislation would take decades; the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made that point. It need not take that many years but it would mean that this was being done in a much sounder, more considered way.
I am afraid that I found the Minister’s responses unpersuasive. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my proposition that Clause 10 be removed from the Bill.