Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I think my credentials in legislation for children are fairly long and fairly clear—or at least I hope so. Before we start to think about children in principle, it is vital to think about the provision that we seek to replace. The Clause in the 2018 Bill gives children no rights whatever. It does nothing more than require the Government to enter into negotiations with regard to...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I would like to point out two matters. First, in new Clause 13D(2)(b) and (c) in Amendment 28, there is the requirement that a Minister must provide “a declaration of whether, in the Minister’s opinion, agreements can be concluded and ratified before IP completion day”, which seems to be in the nature of a prophecy required from the Minister as a matter of compulsion, and “the policy...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I understand that the first part of the amendment may be reasonably accommodated within the answer given to the previous question about separation of powers. I cannot see how the second part can be accommodated—formulating the question the court has to decide in deciding whether the previous decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union should be followed.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I do not particularly wish to speak first, but in view of the noble and learned Lord’s invitation, I will make my brief contribution. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I have a fair amount of experience in this area of European law and the modification of existing judgments—I sat in the House of Lords when it set aside a previous judgment. It is extremely important that we...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The Minister referred to the recognition of children giving this care. What provision is there for finding out the children who are subject to caring for adults or siblings in their family?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Can my noble friend tell us the nature of the liability that was not covered by insurance? People need to know that; after all, some will be going on their Christmas holidays in circumstances such as this, and some may be going earlier for other reasons. We need to know exactly what gave rise to this uninsured liability. I do not know whether Thomas Cook did, but most travel agents require...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am sorry that my voice is not as I would like it to be today. My intention is simply to talk about the law as it is just now. My understanding is that unless we have a deal approved before 31 October, we will go out of the European Union without a deal. It is said that there is an answer to that in statute. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I know a good deal about that, and I...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I take part in the debate because a gentleman in Northern Ireland asked me to do so. As your Lordships know, I was responsible for the judicial system in Northern Ireland when it was extremely difficult because the danger to life for people accepting office was very real. Personally, I am very concerned so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. First, if the Assembly assembles on...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I do not feel competent to enter into all the speculations that the noble Lord has just made. It is somewhat of a surprise to me that Mr Churchill thought that the European Union was an important part of the UK’s arrangements with Europe. I think that the Council of Europe was what he had in mind, and I believe that that institution has had a very important role ever since he had...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Before my noble friend sits down, I think I made a speech earlier on. I just wonder whether he has any comment on it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow a fellow Scot, although I will deal with a rather different matter. We are dealing with the proposals in Article 50 for withdrawal from the European Union. It is important to note that, once a country such as ours has given such notice, it is the duty of the Union—I want to read the exact words—to, “negotiate and conclude an agreement with...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: This amendment proposing to delete what is in the Bill strikes me as rather unnecessary, apart from the fact that we have difficulty with time. In my view, the amendment proposed by Mr Stephen Kinnock—a distinguished member of a distinguished family—was perfectly in order. The fact that, though the procedures of the House of Commons, it went into the Bill and is in the Bill we read for a...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: This simply keeps free from constraint the prerogative of the Prime Minister, notwithstanding this Bill. This Bill simply deals with requiring the Prime Minister to apply for an extension; if he manages to get one anyway, it does not matter. That is what is preserved. There is no question at that stage—if we accept the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the nature of...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I would like to say something about that. This is the text of a letter that the Prime Minister is required to send under the Bill. If there had been time, I would have proposed that the letter included a reason. After all, it is to the European Union that the reason is to be expressed. As I understand it, the European Union says that, if it is asked to grant an extension, it wishes to have a...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The condition is obvious: to give the reason why you are applying for an extension. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, the important point is about time, and the EU wants to know how this time is to be taken up. That seems to me a perfectly sensible idea.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It seems obvious to me that if you are asked to make an extension, you do not do it just for the sake of doing it; you have some reason for it. I do not think that the European Union, far as it may be from common sense in many respects, is so daft that it provides for an extension to be applied for with no reason on earth why it should be granted. It seems common sense to me that the reason...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I think the noble Lord said that there would not be time in the Commons to deal with amendments and that therefore, on the whole, he would prefer not to have any. Did I pick that up correctly, or is that wrong? I would like to see the purpose referred to in Clause 1(4) in the letter.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Just before my noble friend sits down, could he say what he understands is meant by, “the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union”, referred to in Clause 1(4) of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I did not realise that we were coming near to winding up. I was asking what the proper time to end was: I wanted to speak near the end so that I would hear the wisdom of others rather than my own. I want to talk a bit about the history of this matter in the House of Commons and then say a word or two about the Bill. Obviously, the question arose immediately after the referendum of whether the...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, it is worth noting that the House of Commons has passed the Bill by a majority of 29, according to my BBC announcement.
