Scotland Act 1998: Section 35 Power

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, in politics there are those issues about which we should, and do, fight hammer and tongs across these Dispatch Boxes and in the other place—issues of taxation, health, Brexit, schools or foreign policy. Gender recognition and the rights of trans people does not have to be one of those hot-button issues. I am afraid that watching the exchanges in the Commons yesterday will delight those who seek to use this issue as a political football. Sure, there is disagreement, but disagreeing well, with respect, is what is needed. What we have, far too often, is denigration, name-calling and attempts to shut down or silence others.

It has been obvious for a very long time that the Scottish and UK Governments just cannot and will not work together, and this latest stand-off is not going to resolve anything. The shadow Secretary of State, Ian Murray, reminded us yesterday that Donald Dewar, the father of devolution, designed Section 35 to protect devolution. It was intended as an enabling mechanism, allowing the Scottish Parliament to pass legislation on devolved competences without changing reserved functions. That was the point of it. The memorandum of understanding that was agreed in response to concerns that Section 35 could be used as a veto was clear. It stated that Section 35 should be used as a “last resort” and that the UK Government and the Scottish Government should

“aim to resolve any difficulties through discussion”.

Have they? The Secretary of State did not have extensive enough discussions with the Scottish Government before taking this action.

Section 35 has never been needed before, not in a quarter of a century of devolution, despite many disagreements, because, in the end, Governments have known that it is their duty to work together. But now, on this of all subjects, the Scottish and UK Governments have decided to make sure that they are in conflict with one another. The SNP Government in Edinburgh are determined to break devolution; UK Ministers are just not interested in it and are prepared to weaponise it. In the end, it is the public who lose out: trans people suffering devastating discrimination, and women’s groups who want their concerns addressed, are put in the middle while a constitutional fight rages on and on. How is it that the Secretary of State can say that there is a version of the GRR Act that the UK Government could support but then not share an outline of what that Act could look like? Perhaps the Minister will do so this evening.

Extensive and clear guidance will need to be issued—of course it will—if the Act is ever going to be implemented, which the Scottish Government say should be provided by the EHRC. Ministers could instruct the EHRC to provide the guidance; why is this not happening? If they genuinely wanted to be helpful and resolve this, Ministers could publish guidance on how the GRR Act would interact with the Equality Act 2010; is this going to happen? The publication of legal advice—I accept that this would be unusual—would assist those who want to see the situation resolved and who want to build trust. Transparency could demonstrate the good intentions that the Government say they are acting on. Will they consider this, in this unique situation?

The Labour Party is proud to be the party of the Equality Act—unlike the Government, I am afraid, who used to laugh at the Act, even though they now rely on it so heavily. Ministers have claimed that they want to protect women and girls, but if the UK Government care so much about this, will the Minister explain why female homicide is skyrocketing and rape convictions have plummeted under their leadership?

We support the principle of updating the Gender Recognition Act; when it was introduced, in 2004, it was world-leading, but it now requires modernisation. But to put this as simply as I can, if there is no discussion about a way forward, this Bill will fall, without any resolution of the issues or any modernisation of the GRA, and those who want to see it fail on issues of substance will not succeed in resolving anything either. This debate will rage on and on, with more vitriol, more anger and less respect, less care and less understanding. Surely the Government can do better than that.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

Will the Minister accept—I think he has to—that it was a very controversial decision to use this power for the first time since devolution, especially, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, has said, when the Government lack trust in many quarters regarding their respect for devolution? It has generated a predictable response from the SNP, which is itself divided on the issue and struggling to find a way forward in its interminable campaign for a second referendum.

Will the Minister confirm, nevertheless, that the Government accept that the passing of the gender recognition Bill falls entirely within the powers of the Scottish Government? The Scottish Parliament is adamant that nothing in the Bill impacts on the UK Equality Act. The UK Government say that they have legal advice to the effect that it does, although some lawyers—not all—see the grounds as thin and not justifying the scale of this action. However, as the First Minister has indicated, it appears that it will inevitably be referred to the Court of Session and thence possibly to the Supreme Court. Are the Government’s legal advisers confident of success?

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that it is regrettable that trans people are caught in the crossfire of this dispute. I suggest to the Minister that this is a distraction that suits both Governments, because they are failing to deal with the manifold crises we face in the health service, energy, cost of living, education and transport. These are the central issues dominating the worries and concerns of everyone across Scotland and the whole of the UK. They want their Governments to concentrate on finding ways through the perfect storm that they have helped create. This distraction does not address the needs and priorities of anyone in the UK. Trans people do not deserve to be caught in the middle of it.

Scottish Independence

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord; 60% of Scottish trade is with England, 20% is with the EU and 20% is international. This is part of the issue not addressed in the paper. I point to a couple of observations. The IFS has said of the paper that

“Scotland’s much higher levels of public spending … mean that it … would need to make bigger cuts to … spending or … increases to taxes”.

Richard Murphy, traditionally a pro-independence economist, said to the National that the

“currency plans are ‘so wrong’ he would vote No in a future referendum.”

A pro-independence campaigner, Robin McAlpine, commented that the prospect was dismal—Scotland has no lender of last resort under these plans and there is no solution to the border. In summary, he said the whole thing is “utter pish”. I defer to the Lord Speaker to explain to more genteel noble Lords that that is a Glaswegian euphemism for utter balderdash.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the truth that neither the Scottish Government nor the UK Government are doing a good job for the Scottish people at the moment? Does the Minister not think the Labour leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, makes a very strong point when he proposes that there should be an emergency cost of living Act, including halving rail fares, capping bus journeys, emergency debt legislation, a top-up to the welfare fund and a fully costed plan for £100 water rebates? Would that not be a better use of the Scottish Government’s time?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

That is quite a long shopping list. We can see the strength of the United Kingdom in the measures recently put forward to address the cost of living crisis, which are distributed equally across all four parts of the United Kingdom. Scotland is a major beneficiary of those and is funded much more securely within the United Kingdom than it would be as an independent country.

Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The noble Lord is quite correct, and of course I defer to his extensive experience in this area. None the less, I submit that it is of fundamental importance that legislation is brought appropriately and in a manner which is workable. The Government are aware of attempts to bring in anti-SLAPP legislation in other jurisdictions, which have in fact been counterproductive and have served the interests of the people who would use this insidious means of stifling free speech and free investigation. The Government must take steps which work.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think that there are many of us who are really buying this defence from the Minister today, but I can confirm that these Benches would be very happy to work with the Government to find the time and the appropriate vehicle to achieve the ends that we all want to see. We are all concerned about transparency and trust in politics. Therefore, will the Minister please inform the House, first, of how many donors to the Conservative Party have made use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, and, secondly, of the total amount donated by these individuals?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her indication of her preparedness to work on a matter which I think is a concern for the whole House. I am also grateful to her for her ready acknowledgment that these concerns are shared across the entire spectrum of British politics. As to her specific question, I will not comment on individual cases, and nor will noble Lords consider it appropriate for me to do so.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

At end insert “but that this House regrets the absence of (1) a response by His Majesty’s Government to the 7th Report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, (2) the publication of an impact assessment outlining the likely consequences of the use of powers in this Bill on the Northern Ireland business community, (3) the publication of draft regulations which may be laid using the powers in this Bill, and (4) any formal report to Parliament on the status of negotiations with the European Union; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to provide this information before the House considers the Bill at Report Stage.”

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by taking this opportunity to extend the condolences of these Benches—and I am sure of other noble Lords across the House—to the family of Baroness May Blood, who passed away late last week. May was the first woman from Northern Ireland to be elevated to this House, reflecting her long record of defending and advancing the rights of women, children and working people. I hope that her family will find some small comfort in the warm tributes from all communities and political parties in Northern Ireland, which must be a reflection of the peace process she did so much to advance.

In moving my amendment to the Motion, I express thanks to colleagues across your Lordships’ House for the many hours of discussions that have taken place since Second Reading. The Second Reading debate highlighted near-unanimous opinion across the House that the Bill is neither wise in a political or diplomatic sense, nor constitutionally acceptable. I know that various colleagues have said at multiple points that they feel very strongly that the Bill should not have a Committee stage, and I sympathise greatly with those who hold that view. In an ideal world, the Government would have recognised this too by accepting the strength of feeling against the Bill and paused it. Perhaps that will still happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has done such fantastic work on pensions and much more that I admire. However, inevitably, in this instance, I completely disagree with her and with the whole tenor of her remarks and the remarks made by many since then. When the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, was speaking, I thought that that was the kind of detail I would like to go through when scrutinising the Bill, and the kind of discussion I assumed we would be having here. In fact, the points of view have become much broader.

I will comment on a few things and will not drag this out for too long. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said that the issues in this Bill go far deeper, and are more important and fundamental, than Brexit. I think that this is because so many in this House still do not really understand what Brexit was all about or the important and fundamental principles at its heart. They do not understand, even now, as we have heard, why millions of people voted for it. When the emphasis is constantly on trustworthiness and integrity, and restoring the trust of the UK Government internationally, maybe people ought to consider that that is always the external focus of this discussion—but there is an internal focus. Surely at this moment, of all times, when political parties on all sides have a very fragile relationship with the voting public—who, let us be honest, are pretty disillusioned—we need to consider how we can restore trustworthiness and integrity with UK voters here at home.

The key to this protocol Bill is that many people in the UK, when they voted in 2019 for that manifesto, wanted to see through the decision of 2016 to leave the European Union. The issue of Northern Ireland was one of the ways through which people were saying, “You can’t have Brexit, because look at the Northern Irish issue”. So people wanted to find a solution to it. I regret that they were overreassured by the Government when they were told, “Don’t worry, we’ve dealt with the protocol issue”—I always had concerns about the protocol issue. However, the intention was not to allow the issue of Northern Ireland to undermine the decision of 2016, because—lest we forget—that 2016 decision was nearly undermined. Some here say, “Our word is our oath” and so on, but they did not think that then; everybody else voted for something, but some here said that it did not make any difference and then ignored it.

It seems that, even now, so much of the discussion we have had is disingenuous. I ask opponents of the Government and the Government this: when people say that surely we should spend a bit more time and pause, how long do they want? Is it any wonder that nothing gets done in this country, if people think that this is a speedy process? Since 2019 we have had this protocol Bill and it is going wrong. Something needs to be done. The idea that we can pause or stop it and reconsider is not because anybody thinks we should not rush it through. Really, the message is: can the Government pause it, slow down, change their mind and agree with me? That is not the same as saying that we should pause and rethink; it is saying, “Pause and do what I tell you to do”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, suggested that the Bill creates a bullying approach to negotiations with the EU. I disagree. For me, what the debate so far has illustrated is the bullying approach within this House on this discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, says that the Bill is not going to get through this House unless it is changed beyond all recognition. Really? Do we not have votes? What does the noble Baroness mean when she says it is not getting through?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Just to correct what the noble Baroness said about my contribution, I did not say that the Bill will not get through; I said that it will not get an easy ride, and I think the discussion today has rather borne that out.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I wrote it down and I will check. It was said that if there were not substantial alterations to the Bill, this House will block it. I suggest that it might be a bit of an affront to democracy for people in this House to say that we should block the Bill. That is not our decision. When people here talk about how the Bill is an affront to democratic decision-making, I point out that threatening to block a Bill is an affront to democratic decision-making. When people say that they are worried that the Bill bypasses Parliament, and that they want to protect democratic norms and do not want the Government to become an elected dictatorship, they should note that blocking the Bill would imply bypassing Parliament, undermining democratic norms and turning this House into an unelected dictatorship.

Finally, why do I think the Bill is needed? This bit, I can go into. The problems of the operation of the protocol are well documented. Many people have greater experience of it than I do, but when we scrutinise the Bill and go through it, that is what we should talk about, and whether the Bill is fit for purpose to resolve some of those things. I agree with that. But the reason a Bill is needed is surely because the rule of law—and everybody here seems enthusiastic about the rule of law—will be applied differently to the people of Northern Ireland unless we do something about the way the protocol is being enacted. To be able to ensure that all citizens of the United Kingdom are treated equally under the law, we need to do something—it cannot be that all citizens are treated equally under the rule of law in the UK apart from a certain section of the UK who will be subject to decisions made by legislators that they have no control over.

As a civil libertarian, regardless of what you think of Brexit, if you believe in the rule of law, you cannot let things stand as they are. We need to urgently do something. While some have indicated that the real problem is Brexit, that ship has sailed. The British people spoke. Brexit is a reality and we have to live with that. We have to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are not punished.

--- Later in debate ---

Baroness Altmann’s amendment (to Baroness Chapman of Darlington’s amendment to the Motion) withdrawn.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I start by thanking the Minister for the tone of his response to this debate. I did not anticipate that this stage of our consideration would take quite so long, but I make no apologies for enabling us to have this discussion. It has been very helpful, and I particularly value the opportunity to listen to those with whom I may not completely agree, but it is vital that we understand one another and why we have reached the positions that we have.

Much has been said about Article 16 and why we now—for want of a better word—favour that approach. Quite simply, it is clearly a legal mechanism. We have concerns about a unilateral Act by the UK Government applied to a dispute around something happening in Northern Ireland. That has never been a good way to proceed, and I do not think it is now.

When considering what to do about the Bill, the test I have applied has nothing to do with Brexit. Brexit has happened and the challenge now is to make it work—I think most people in this Chamber accept that. The test is whether pursuing this Bill and its approach, not knowing what would be in its place, assists us to find a negotiated settlement. The view of these Benches, today, is that it does not; it hinders our ability to reach a negotiated settlement. For that reason, we remain unconvinced, but we welcome—we have to welcome—the assurances the Minister gave. We anticipate receiving the information in a timely fashion but, today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

Baroness Chapman of Darlington’s amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(e) gives Ministers of the Crown power to commence its substantive provisions by regulations, subject to the condition in section 26(3A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that the ministerial power to commence Clauses 1-20 is subject to conditions outlined in a later amendment to Clause 26.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful and will try not to repeat myself and go over the discussion we have just had. The issue with trying to amend this Bill is that our concerns are fundamental and political, rather than about wording or drafting. We object to the very approach the Government are taking, so it is quite difficult to think of how to amend and improve it to get to a place where we could find ourselves supporting it.

It is not universal, but we have heard that many noble Lords—I would venture to say a significant proportion of the House—fundamentally disagree with the approach that the Government have adopted. They believe that it breaches international law and harms us diplomatically, not just with the EU but beyond—globally. They think it is an abuse of ministerial power and see it as detrimental to our and the Government’s stated ambition for a negotiated settlement. We have attempted to find ways to amend the Bill to answer these concerns, but we have not managed to do that successfully. In this group, noble Lords will see Amendments 1, 6 and 70 in my name, and other amendments, which place conditions on the implementation of the Bill.

I have not heard anybody argue that the Northern Ireland protocol should not be improved, amended, or implemented differently. However you want to describe it, there clearly are problems. We take them very seriously, accept that they exist, and do not hold the position that nothing should change. We have listened incredibly carefully and repeatedly to the voices of businesses and elected politicians in Northern Ireland, and we agree that change is needed. However, as we have said previously—and will now be clear to the Minister—we want a negotiated outcome, not unilateral action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My apologies; I have covered Amendments 2 and 43, which are the ones in this group. Without repeating myself, the notion of a regular report to Parliament on negotiations would in our view not be appropriate. It has been the position that the Northern Ireland protocol and negotiations regarding it are, like any other treaty, a matter for the Government operating under the foreign affairs prerogative.

In addition, as I have already said, it would not be conducive to a successful outcome in negotiations to provide a running commentary, nor, ultimately, do I believe the House would expect that. However, as I have said, where I can, I will look to update your Lordships’ House accordingly and we will update Parliament on the status of negotiations at the appropriate times. Also, the usual mechanisms for the House to scrutinise our activity will remain open to all noble Lords. I therefore hope that, at this juncture, with the responses that I have given, the noble Baroness will be minded to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister. I note again his rather charming tone, but I am afraid he cannot disguise with a charming tone what is becoming more clearly quite a weak position. Some of the things he said have made me more inclined to support the amendments that have been tabled in this group than I was before. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Ritchie, for their support for our amendments.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about having a briefing, on the one hand, yes, that does make sense, but I am nervous about entering into novel processes or getting into things that are outside of the Chamber. I think it is far preferable to have something that everybody is able to participate in, and that it is on the record. Noting what the Minister said about running commentaries, no one is asking for a running commentary. This is not like negotiating through the Article 50 process; this is quite straightforward and limited in scope, everybody knows what the issues are, and there are plenty of suggested solutions. This ought not to be beyond the wit of a Minister such as he to be able to make progress. I am very—

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness accept the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked me to clarify? The starting position, which is behind one of the reasons why we put the Bill forward, is that the Northern Ireland protocol is not working for all communities. There is a democratic deficit. We can talk processes, but the Government’s intention is to unlock that principle, and I hope the noble Baroness agrees on that.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I have been very clear about that. I am surprised by the Minister’s intervention on that point, because in both speeches I have made, and in comments elsewhere, I have been very clear on that point. The truth is that these issues are only resolved through negotiation. The question really is about the Government’s approach. I have some sympathy because Ministers have inherited this approach. It is not something, perhaps, that they would have initiated themselves, and it is born of a different political landscape. However, it is something that they have to pursue now, and the Government are not being clear enough about their preferred solutions. If it were to be so, and those solutions were to be viable, they might just find that His Majesty’s Opposition would support the Government in those. We want to approach this with as much consensus as we can; we do not want to have arguments with the Government over Northern Ireland. We want to agree with the Government. We want to help find solutions. That is a much more powerful position for the Minister to be in, when he is negotiating with EU partners, surely.

We will not go to a vote today and I will withdraw the amendment. Unfortunately, this dogged determination that the Government have to stick with their approach come what may, because they do not want to be seen to back down, is I think not really helping matters in this House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

What reliance have we without this Bill and its provisions that people would not revert to that? We must have legislation to copper-fasten some of these issues.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I understand that my noble friend—if I can call him that—has been lied to repeatedly, but he was lied to by the Government. I gently suggest that his beef ought to be with the noble Lords opposite me, rather than my party. As he says, our position on Article 16—as you would expect, and as I attempted to explain earlier—has evolved in the context of what we are being presented with by the Government. This approach was not previously conceived of; now that it is, it puts Article 16 in a slightly different light. This is not especially complicated, but it is the view of the Labour Party.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I understand what she is saying, but the issues that were being discussed at the time by Her Majesty’s Government, as it then was, and which the Labour Party was responding to, are the same issues that are before us today, which are affecting the political process in Northern Ireland and leading to problems with the supply of goods from Great Britain. They are exactly the same but when the solution, “Let’s trigger Article 16; let’s go into negotiations”, was suggested, the Labour Party derided that as being toxic. The Labour Party gave support and succour to those who have allowed this position of instability and economic and constitutional harm to continue. A lot of lies have been told around the place, but it is no good, if I may say so, the noble Baroness putting all the blame on to the Government when everybody in Parliament and all political parties have to accept that the goalposts have been shifted, often by consensus, in a way that has done damage to the Belfast agreement, as amended by St Andrews, in a way that has undermined the trust of the people in Northern Ireland in the institutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Not any more.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I hear he has changed. The former Paymaster-General, who is now the former Attorney-General, was citing the former Attorney-General Suella Braverman, who is now the Home Secretary—even I am struggling to keep up with what is going on. Nevertheless, the principle is clear that, if the then Attorney-General was happy to provide advice to the Times in her abortive leadership campaign, we humbly seek that Parliament be equally enlightened with an update on exactly what the Government’s position is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I beg respectfully to differ from my noble friend. The situation is not the same, because in the intervening period between the announcements to which my noble friend refers, and today, these problems about implementation have arisen; so the situation is not the same, and we simply cannot go back to reference the text of the argument.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I have noticed the emphasis that the Minister has placed twice now on the word “implementation”, and I want to understand precisely where he views the problems with the protocol to lie now, because the Bill that he is supporting deals with the problems in a far more fundamental way than just looking at implementation and practicalities.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am referring to implementation in terms of the manner in which these problems have arisen: the problems that have led to the difficulties with which the House is currently grappling, such as the suspension of institutions and the democratic deficit. I think the noble Baroness wishes to speak.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I was muttering to myself, actually. Those are not problems of implementation of the protocol, those are issues that underlie the protocol; I am just trying to understand exactly what the Government see as the problem, because unless we do that in a fuller way than he is perhaps leading towards, we will not have a clear idea of what the Government are recommending the solution to be.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I will match his “Get rid of Clause 11” with “Get rid of them all”, because that is our position.

The Advocate-General said at Second Reading:

“the peril … was not inherent in the protocol’s provision.” —[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 764.]

But he then said today that the “problem lies in the protocol”, which the Government themselves negotiated. So, we are back to the situation regarding the Government’s proposals, and it seems that the Government are going to rest on an assertion of necessity, with an assumption that it is not going to be tested. It surely is not welcome for us, in passing legislation, that the Government are effectively asking people to challenge it in the international courts—I can only imagine that it would be the ICJ.

The ICJ has stated in clear terms that invoking necessity on wrongfulness and not adhering to a treaty commitment cannot be a permanent solution. So I ask the Advocate-General, if he responds to any of the points that I am going to make, whether the Government agree with that. The ICJ has stated on a number of occasions that, even if invoking necessity was upheld, it is only temporary in order to remove the grave and imminent peril; it is not permanent, because it still means that that party is in breach of the treaty.

So if long-term, permanent changes are required to be made, that will require protocol changes and treaty changes, and the Government have not said that. They cannot invoke necessity if they believe that this is a permanent solution. The reason why I say that with confidence is—the Advocate-General, in schooling the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and me as non-lawyers, said we were “less wrong” on this—that, customarily in international law, we have to look at the record of the ICJ. I asked the Library of the House to provide me with information on when the ICJ has upheld parties who have invoked necessity. It has never been upheld, for the very good reason that it has to be limited, and “grave and immanent peril” on a cumulative basis is considered an exceptionally high bar. The Advocate-General must know that.

Of the two cases that the Advocate-General cited, the one involving Hungary and Slovakia—which was referred to by my noble friend—I found fascinating, as I mentioned before, when I read the judgment. The Advocate-General said that necessity

“was recognised by the International Court of Justice in 1997 in a case between Slovakia and Hungary regarding a dam on the Danube.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 765]

As I referred to before, the Government seem to be relying on one case regarding communist Hungary in 1989 which the ICJ threw out.

The second case mentioned, involving Canada and fisheries, could refer to two cases. In one, the ICJ was asked by Spain to adjudicate because Canada had seized a vessel, invoking necessity, but the ICJ said that it could not look into it because Canada had passed legislation at that time to have a reservation from the ICJ, so the case could not even be heard. The other case relating to the Grand Banks should worry the Minister, as it was about imposing licence fees. Canada invoked necessity; the US responded saying that it would pay the fees of the fishermen and then claim reimbursement from Canada; then Canada amended its laws, which brought in all other aspects, and it was resolved by Canada removing the licence fees. Now, if that is a precedent, it is a worrying one, because I can see that there will be consequences with the EU as a result of this legislation. There will be reciprocal action and the UK will pay for it.

So can the Minister confirm what the Library told me, that there has never been a successful invocation of necessity? Can he tell me if there has ever been a case where any party has invoked necessity for framework legislation? I could not find it, so presumably the Minister will be able to help me.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly; I do not see any point in repeating what other people have said. I added my name to the attempt by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to remove these clauses, and it has been observed by some that this is a wrecking move. I guess it is, in a way, if you do not agree with a Bill and feel unable to amend it in a way that would make it satisfactory, you attempt to remove clauses which then unravel it. We are not happy with this piece of legislation and we are seeking ways—some of them creative, others more blunt, as this one is—because we think the Government are taking the wrong approach.

The points about necessity have been made at length. I think the Minister needs to be as thorough as he can—although perhaps not as lengthy as he can, just very clear. I think we want clarity about exactly where the Government think they are on this. My suspicion is that the Government are backfilling their answers as they go along and that they did not really think about this, because this piece of legislation was not really thought about. Introducing it in the first place was a political act to give the impression that the Government were playing hardball in negotiations. It has kind of served its purpose, as some people have explained, over the months. Ministers are now having to justify where they have got themselves, and we are all intrigued about where it is going to go next.

I do not know how the Minister is going to respond to the concerns raised by the DUP, which are incredibly serious and ought to be considered with the utmost thoughtfulness. Especially in the absence of any draft regulations, I do not know how those concerns are going to be dealt with. It is all very unclear. This is not the way we should proceed with any issues, and especially not when it comes to Northern Ireland.

We have been around the houses on the issue of Article 16 rather a lot. It is just ridiculous to claim that Article 16 lacks the flexibility to be able to deal with the concerns that have been raised—obviously it does. The Minister’s explanation for why that is no longer the Government’s preferred route does not really add up. Again, I think that in their desire to have some legislation, they are having to make up reasons going backwards, and that is why they are now coming unstuck on the Floor of the House.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and her concerns about the haulage industry. It is absolutely right that those concerns should be raised. I would be very happy to go to Ballymena and to meet Mr Jackson to listen to what he has to say, because I am sure that what he said in his letter to us is true. Of course we ought to be looking at ways to make sure that those issues are fixed, but I do not think that this is the right way to go about it. This is not about the EU always being right; I think the EU was wrong to link these issues with Horizon. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. We should have made progress on both issues, but separately. So, we do not always take the EU’s side. That is just not true.

The principal concern we have is that unless we get at the very least the things we have asked for in our earlier amendments—specifically these draft regulations; that is really important—we are going to be looking at ways to make sure that the Bill does not proceed as smoothly as the Minister would like. This is not a tweaking issue; we just do not think the Government are going about this in the right way.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 11th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, nearly three years ago, Ministers and the then Prime Minister returned from Brussels triumphantly, holding the withdrawal agreement and a brand-new protocol on Northern Ireland. We were told that this was a great deal for the country, and especially for Northern Ireland. It was, we were told, the best of both worlds. Most importantly, we were told that the letter and spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement had been preserved. Now, Ministers tell us that none of this really happened. They insist that the protocol—that they negotiated, signed and campaigned on—does precisely the opposite of what they claimed then, and that it is the source of the problems that they vowed it would solve. Their answer now is to take a wrecking ball to their own agreement and to ask noble Lords to support a Bill that is a flagrant breach of international law. Frankly, your Lordships’ House should not have been asked to consider this Bill.

The truth is that the Bill is an abject admission of failure: first, a failure to understand the deal that they themselves negotiated; and, secondly, a failure to right the wrongs of their previous decisions. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede will outline later, the Bill is an insult to our political, legal and diplomatic traditions. Its aims and the powers it grants to Ministers of the Crown amount to nothing short of constitutional vandalism. It damages Britain’s hard-won reputation as a country that plays by the rules. It divides us from our European allies when we should be walking in lockstep in the face of Putin’s war in Ukraine. Further, it risks creating new trade barriers and more uncertainty for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, and the rest of the UK, in the middle of a cost of living crisis.

There are many reasons to object to the Bill but I will focus on just three. First, the Bill will not solve the problems it purports to fix. Secondly, it is incompatible with our obligations under international law. Thirdly, it affords Ministers unreasonable, unwarranted and unprecedented powers. I shall take each one in turn.

We are all aware of the serious and difficult political challenges facing Northern Ireland today. The Good Friday agreement is an article of faith for the Labour Party: it is one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government, negotiated in partnership with parties and communities across Northern Ireland and with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. The institutions born out of that transformative peace are now under strain. Stormont is unable to function; months have passed without power-sharing; and democratic elections have not produced a functioning Government, meaning that the Executive cannot deliver for people during this economic crisis. This is a serious problem.

We recognise that the operation of the protocol, and the checks and barriers to trade that are an inherent feature of its design, have created problems for businesses. We accept that. Regrettably, it has heightened concerns, particularly among the unionist community, about their place in the UK, and these concerns must be heard.

As I have said on multiple occasions, this is not a one-sided issue. The EU too, as well as the UK Government, must show flexibility, but the only feasible way forward is through negotiation. Without swift progress there will have to be fresh elections in Northern Ireland and a serious Westminster Government, one with cool heads and steady hands, would work with all parties to ease current tensions.

With trust, good will, statecraft and hard work, these problems can and will be overcome. Instead, the Bill seeks to impose an unrealistic and likely unlawful unilateral solution. It is fundamentally flawed. Only a deal that works for all sides and which delivers for the people of Northern Ireland can be durable and provide the stability that businesses and the public deserve.

The good news is that the Government may finally be realising this. Last week, talks between the Government and the EU resumed. While some chose not to endorse this approach, Ministers apologised for their prior conduct in an extraordinary but welcome admission of the damage done in recent years. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has even said that he wants to make this legislation redundant—hear, hear to that. I welcome the Government’s long-overdue conversion to the merits of negotiation, but does that not undermine the entire basis for this Bill?

This brings me to our second central objection: the Bill is by any reasonable reading incompatible with international law. Britain has a proud record as a champion of the rule of law. This transcends personalities and party politics, stemming from our unique history and legal traditions, from Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights. However, this Government are willing to rip up those traditions and override a central element of an international treaty in domestic law, despite only recently agreeing the treaty forbidding such behaviour. They argue that this Bill is necessary, yet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says that he is very positive about the chances of success in these new negotiations. Not only is there an alternative to this Bill but the Government prefer it, are working on it and think it is achievable.

Moreover, the Government have not exhausted all legal routes available to them under the protocol and wider agreements with the EU. We do not wish to see Article 16 triggered, but if the Government are so keen to implement safeguards, why have they not done so through the legal means at their disposal? Despite what the Minister said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, Article 16 could of course be used without jeopardising the common travel area or the energy market. I ask him to look again at his argument on that point.

The Bill shows the Government are willing to break binding treaties when it suits their internal party-political objectives to do so. That is disgraceful. If they proceed with this legislation, can they be surprised if our international partners start asking themselves whether we will keep our end of the bargain? As Ministers travel the globe to challenge the actions of dictators and despots, what message does it send when they stand here, in the mother of all parliaments, proposing measures that break international law? Reputations are hard won and easily lost. This Bill tarnishes our country’s reputation. That is simply not in our national interest. It is not who we are, nor is it the country we want to be. There is nothing more patriotic that this House can do than to defend Britain’s proud political values and legal principles.

The Bill is also a blatant power grab. It gifts the Government extraordinary powers while denying proper scrutiny by Parliament. Ministers may use these powers whenever they feel it is appropriate, disapply other parts of the protocol, or even amend Acts of Parliament. These are some of the widest-drawn Henry VIII powers I have seen during my more than 10 years in both Houses of Parliament. I am aware that that is a blink of an eye compared to the experience of some noble Lords here today, but surely this sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Just as we should defend our nation’s reputation as a law-abiding member of the international community, we should also preserve Parliament’s role as a check on ministerial power.

Finally, I know colleagues are interested in the various amendments to the substantive Motions on today’s Order Paper, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. First, let me say that I empathise with the noble Lord a great deal. If he does not mind my saying so, he has been a Conservative parliamentarian for more than 50 years and has been present in either this House or another place during all manner of political events and crises. It therefore says a lot about the Government and their handling of the protocol that he has felt compelled to table his amendments. I have tabled my own, setting out the concerns of not only the Labour Party but many noble Lords across the House. I am grateful to those who have engaged with the process of drafting it.

The Government need to reconsider this legislation. Ministers should at least report to the House on whether a pause in the passage of the Bill would be beneficial to these new negotiations. I know that many noble Lords would like to see the back of this Bill. I would, too; it is an abomination. But, however flawed, the Bill has the support of the elected House and we will proceed with it for today.

I welcome the Minister’s remarks that a negotiated settlement genuinely is the Government’s goal. I do not believe that that has always been the case, so his remarks to that effect are welcome. Taking that in good faith and with flexibility from both sides, an agreement is surely possible and we hope that this Bill can be consigned to history, where it belongs. It may be that Ministers reflect on today’s debate and decide to take the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, up on his suggestion of a pause, but if they insist on pushing ahead with Committee in two weeks’ time, we will, of course, be open to discussions with colleagues across House as to possible next steps.

To summarise, this Bill is the wrong approach at the wrong time. It breaks international law, damaging our reputation; it gives Ministers unparalleled delegated powers; and it does not enjoy the support of the majority of businesses or Assembly Members in Northern Ireland itself. The way forward is a grown-up, level-headed negotiation, not the continued threat of unilateral action, which would result in retaliatory measures that our economy could do without at such a precarious time.

We have been presented with a window of opportunity in recent days. The gap between the UK and the EU is not vast. Let us seize that opportunity and do the deal that should have been done three long years ago: a deal with the people of Northern Ireland at its heart that enables the whole of the United Kingdom to move forward and to regain our reputation as a country that acts in good faith.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

At end insert “but that this House regrets that His Majesty’s Government have introduced legislation which is widely perceived to breach the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law; further regrets that they have proposed unparalleled delegated powers to be exercised by Ministers of the Crown, which could be used to undermine international law and which would be subject to little or no parliamentary scrutiny; calls attention to the serious concerns expressed by the Northern Ireland business community and the majority of members of the Northern Ireland Assembly over the contents of the Bill; notes that the Bill contradicts the policy platform endorsed by the electorate at the 2019 General Election; therefore calls on His Majesty's Government to prioritise a negotiated solution with the European Union, and to pursue existing legal options to resolve outstanding issues around the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland; and further calls on His Majesty’s Government to consider and report to the House on whether pausing this legislation would be beneficial to the progress of those negotiations or other processes”.

Amendment not moved.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2022

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, we support this instrument. I have just a couple of questions. I am surprised that the question of jurisdiction was not dealt with in the Act itself. Perhaps the Minister has some explanation for that, which I have not perceived.

My second question relates to paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:

“The Government’s policy intention behind the reformed law”,


which in turn has resulted in the consequential amendments contained in this instrument,

“is that the decision to divorce should be a considered one, and that separating couples should not be put through legal requirements which do not serve their or the state’s interests”.

I find that a bit puzzling, and I wonder whether the Minister can help me with what it is directed to. However, as I say, we support the amendments.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we, too, support the regulations. The provisions are primarily to reflect the new terminology associated with the reformed divorce, dissolution and separation proceedings in the Act, as well as to add a jurisdictional ground for the newly created joint applications.

The Act has not yet come into effect, but we hope that it will soon and that there is no further delay. I think I heard the Minister confirm that the date will be 6 April 2022—he is nodding, so I take that as an indication that that is correct—which is very pleasing. My party fully supports that Act and the changes to divorce, dissolution and separation that it will introduce. As a result of this Act, it will be much easier for couples to divorce in cases where the relationship has irretrievably broken down.

We hope that this will end some of the adversarial system currently in place. A spouse will no longer be able to object to or oppose a divorce, and couples will no longer have to apportion blame for the breakdown, leading, we hope, to less conflict and acrimony for all involved. A simple statement that the marriage has irretrievably broken down should be sufficient for proceedings to commence. I am very pleased to welcome the measures that the Minister has outlined today.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to participating Peers for their contributions to the debate. The noble Baroness on the Labour Front Bench acknowledged that I had tacitly confirmed that 6 April was the commencement date—so I was able to answer that question without saying anything.

As to the two questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I regret to say that I do not have ready answers to either—I beg the Committee’s pardon. I undertake to provide answers in writing to the noble Lord as soon as I am able.

Beyond that, I think I have registered agreement from both noble Lords who spoke that these merely consequential amendments are not contentious and bring about changes to standardise the approach to language and to jurisdiction grounds for divorce—ensuring, I hope, that legislation surrounding divorce is clear, simple and consistent across the board. I commend this instrument to the Committee.