All 3 Debates between Lord True and Lord Carlile of Berriew

Mon 15th Jul 2019
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords

Restoration and Renewal: Location of House of Lords Chamber

Debate between Lord True and Lord Carlile of Berriew
Monday 16th May 2022

(1 year, 11 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I am very fond of Norwich personally, but I would not encourage further speculation in this area. I will only say from my personal experience that I was in York last week on a ministerial visit and I did not look at any alternative site for your Lordships’ House.

Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I declare the interest of having been brought up in Burnley. Would the noble Lord care to remind Mr Gove that we are one Parliament and not two, and therefore dividing the two Houses would be a very adverse and unconstitutional act? Therefore, if he wants Parliament to be in Burnley, it should be both Houses and not one.

Lord True Portrait Lord True (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, again, I am not going to speak for my right honourable friend, but the noble Lord makes a cogent point which would need to be considered by all of us within Parliament in respect of its future operation. Those of us who have had experience of a Parliament by Zoom know the importance of personal contact within and across the Houses to the good operation of government and Parliament.

Constitution, Democracy and Human Rights Commission

Debate between Lord True and Lord Carlile of Berriew
Thursday 14th January 2021

(3 years, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Con)
- Hansard - -

Aside from the question of whether it be under the ambit of a commission, I believe that my noble friend puts his finger on something that is profoundly important about the way in which the context of politics and government is changing. Without treading on anyone’s feet, I would certainly be interested to hear your Lordships’ opinion on that in a future debate.

Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Please could the noble Lord explain simply to a perplexed audience the relationship between Sir Peter Gross’s review of the Human Rights Act, the review by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, of administrative law and the constitution, democracy and human rights commission being discussed today?

Lord True Portrait Lord True (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, those are two separate workstreams as part of the constitutional reform consideration that we are undertaking. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, we are eating the elephant in chunks. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act review is another part, so there are already three strands and they each deserve careful and individual attention.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Carlile of Berriew
Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 15th July 2019

(4 years, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 190-I(Rev)(a)(Manuscript) Amendment for Committee, supplementary to the revised marshalled list (PDF) - (15 Jul 2019)
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As—I feel I should state—the husband of a former partner in Mishcon de Reya, can I ask the noble Lord, with his distinguished record of parliamentary and public service, how he would like to limit the ambit of judicial review, which is the way in which citizens challenge administrative action that has been called into doubt?

Lord True Portrait Lord True
- Hansard - -

Whether judicial review should be limited will be a matter for whichever judge the case is put before. My submission is that this is an inappropriate use. The irony when it comes to judicial review is that most JRs of Jeremy Corbyn would come from the Labour Party itself.

Amendment 7 is not a question of allowing Parliament to decide on Brexit. Parliament asked the people to decide the question; the people decided. Parliament voted to invoke Article 50. This Parliament, in this very Session, voted by overwhelming majorities to leave the EU. Parliament has set the law of the land that we should leave on 31 October. It is not a question of anyone stopping Parliament deciding; Parliament has already decided.