Lord Judge: Undoubtedly that is right, and that is why Amendment 32 specifically deals with that issue in paragraph (c). For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 32 withdrawn. Amendments 33 to 40 not moved.
Lord Judge: I wonder if anybody else wants to make an intervention? Well, tempers have got slightly frayed, have they not? But can I just feel inspired by the thought that it is either the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who has had a conversion on the road to Damascus? I would like to have a cup of tea to discuss which one of us it was, and also, more...
Lord Judge: My Lords, I feel like Henry V before the siege of Harfleur. Looking around, I see: “greyhounds in the slips, Straining upon the start”. Just like those poor chaps outside Harfleur, I suspect your Lordships all want it to be over quickly, and that is my intention. This amendment is very simple. It is my answer to the letter I received from the Government about the Bill which I read out to...
Lord Judge: My Lords, that brings me to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that we really do need to know in statute what the trigger point should be. I ask that we now consider, when it is decided that we will have an IPA intervention, how that will relate to coroners and the inquest system, because these disasters almost invariably will involve deaths. One of the things during the...
Lord Judge: My Lords, this is a troublesome piece of legislation. It asks us all a very simple question: when does the right to withhold your labour—that is, to strike—cease to be a right? It answers that question too, and the answer is a bit depressing: the right ceases when, following a ministerial decree, your employer can oblige you to work, and if you fail to do so you can lose your job. That is...
Lord Judge: My Lords, I think I am the only Member of the House who received this letter by special messenger. Having received it, I think I had better read it to your Lordships. It is from the Executive and it is called “Restoring Parliamentary control”. This is how it reads, ignoring the introductions: “To achieve the object of restoring control back to Parliament, please would you surrender to...
Lord Judge: My Lords, I welcome these reports, as I have welcomed reports produced by these two committees and the Constitution Committee before 2021-22. I particularly welcome the unequivocal language in which these reports are expressed; there is no way that anybody can misunderstand their meaning. I also welcome the support on all sides of the House for what the reports have said, and in particular...
Lord Judge: My Lords, I apologise for not being present at Second Reading; I was doing other business in the House. I feel particularly humbled, because if my noble friend Lord Carlile thinks that he was the junior to my noble friend Lord Anderson and therefore was short, I have reverted to something I have not been since 1964: a pupil. Pupils are allowed to take notes, but they are not allowed to say...
Lord Judge: Is it a very good idea in 2023 for the royal prerogative, which goes back hundreds of years, to be vested in the hands of the person holding the office of Prime Minister?
Lord Judge: That is not a justification for embodying it in statute.
Lord Judge: My Lords, I respectfully support the last two speeches from the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I rise with a certain degree of concern that I have no experience of Northern Ireland; many of my colleagues on the Cross Benches will speak on these issues. I do, though, have some experience of terrorism and terrorism offences in England. Although I deeply sympathise...
Lord Judge: My Lords, I welcome the Bill as a first step on what will be a very long journey. My noble friend Lord McDonald of Salford said that it is long overdue and referred to 1999. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans talked about what happened 170 years ago. Will noble Lords please come back with me to the Petition of Right in 1628? King Charles I was rather troubled about the...
Lord Judge: While the Minister is conferring with his officials, can he suggest to them that they look at Clause1(1) and put in some new words? After “A person commits an offence if”, he should add “without reasonable excuse”, if (a) they do this, (b) they do that and (c) they do the other. Then he should get rid of subsection (2).
Lord Judge: My Lords, I am very sorry that I was not able to speak at Second Reading. I shall be very brief. I share the various arguments presented to the Committee about the vagueness of this legislation and the ineptitude of the drafting that leaves so many criminal offences so vaguely described. I support the basic premise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. We are about to legislate in a...
Lord Judge: My Lords, I have nothing whatever to do with whether there are too many of which party in the House. If the Minister cannot comment on the future, perhaps I can go back over the history of, say, the last 25 years. Has the time perhaps come when the exercise of the royal prerogative by the Prime Minister should be subject to some sort of legislation? If it is not subject to some sort of...
Lord Judge: May I return to the protocol, please? On how many occasions have there been negotiations and discussions specific to the issues raised in the protocol between the UK Government and the European Union, first, at Secretary of State level and, secondly, at any ministerial level? When will the next such meetings take place at each of these levels?
Lord Judge: Yes, on protocol issues.
Lord Judge: On how many occasions have meetings taken place, specific to the protocol, at Secretary of State level and ministerial level, with EU equivalents? There can have been only so many—one, two, 10, 15. If the Minister does not know the answer, I am perfectly happy to receive a letter.
Lord Judge: The clause says that regulations under this Act may make “any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including provisions modifying this Act.)” The words are completely expressed.
Lord Judge: My Lords, I keep hearing the words “democratic accountability” and then I look at the Bill and I cannot find any. We have listened as Clauses 4 to 21 have been debated in this Chamber. If we add those clauses together, we have a lamentable lack of democratic accountability. I expect it will be said, “Ah well, as always, the House of Commons can reject any regulations” and so on; and,...
