Operation Soteria

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I do not have to hand the information that the noble Baroness seeks, but I undertake to write to her. I am aware of the existence of SARCs. They came in and were located within hospitals so that people did not face the daunting prospect of immediate engagement with the criminal justice system but were brought in gradually. I share the noble Baroness’s concern about this matter and, with her leave, will write to her.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will understand that my experience in relation to prosecuting and defending rape is, to put it mildly, dated. He will, of course, be aware of the proposals now being made north of the border. To what extent are these being taken into account in the other jurisdiction in which he has responsibility?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to say that my professional arc and that of the noble Lord have coincided, so he and I share experiences in this field. The point the noble Lord makes is—as the noble Lord is—an evergreen one. Certain essentials in relation to these matters exist and will always exist. On the specific matter the noble Lord raises, in my ministerial post I am very conscious of developments in Scotland and assure the noble Lord that, together with the England and Wales law officers—with whom I am in regular contact: we have a meeting once a week—we share with one another data and experiences and the work that we carry out in the field in order best to improve practices in all jurisdictions.

Scotland: Meeting with New First Minister

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that. Some 60% of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom, 20% is with the EU and 20% is international. We talk to businesses regularly, which say that they do not recognise borders. The last thing that they want is a hard border on this island. Scottish businesses want access to that market, and we would encourage the Scottish Government to respect that.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, may I caution the Minister and the Government against any triumphalism? The case against independence must continue to be made on its merits and not for the embarrassment of the SNP.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

That is exactly the point that Kate Forbes was putting across. To take the nationalist movement so far, Alex Salmond moved it from 30% to 45%, and he was entitled to say that his successor, Nicola Sturgeon, might have moved it from 45% to 60% but singularly failed in eight years. The point that Kate Forbes was making is that if it takes longer then so be it, but if you make the case for a prosperous Scotland then you can perhaps have that more fully answered.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am always delighted when people think that opinion polls and what is said on Twitter are democracy in real life. I do not know why we bother with the ballot box—we should just go to an opinion poll. I believe in democracy and the democratic right of the British and UK people to make their decisions without rushing off to Opinium Research, or whoever it may be.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the House would not expect me to, or hope that I would, follow that contribution. I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading. I was travelling, as it happens, back from the United States and could not get here before the proper time and date to indicate a wish to speak in the debate. However, that travel to the United States prompts me to say this: we ignore at our peril the importance attached on both sides of the aisle, and in both Houses of Congress, to the Belfast agreement. To put it neutrally, this Bill puts a stress and strain on that settlement. For that reason, and for all the others eloquently put forward today, this Bill should at the very least be delayed.

I remind the House that, some time ago, we were presented with a Bill nominally in relation to internal markets. It contained a Part 5, the purpose of which was to create a law whereby the Government would be excused when it broke the law. The Government have form on this matter, and there is a sense in which the Bill we are discussing is simply part of the same kind of thinking. What has been said today has been said with great eloquence; what was said in this House on the internal markets Bill was said with great eloquence and eventually the Government had to abandon it.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak with some trepidation as, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, this has been a convention of like-minded people, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, put it.

I have just come hot-foot from a Committee A (Sovereign Matters) meeting at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in Cavan. We were addressed by the Taoiseach at some length and by other Irish Ministers. There was much discussion of these matters during the day. However, no Irish Minister said, “Whatever you do, when you get back to London, make sure that this protocol Bill is stopped”. It is simply not a contentious matter in these negotiations. That is a simple fact. A very large percentage of what has been said today about the need for good faith and how dropping this blunderbuss will strengthen our position is, with the kindest of respect, totally irrelevant.

The EU has decided, for its own perfectly good reasons—it is keen to reach this deal; I utterly believe in its good faith—that this Bill will not stop substantive negotiation. What it would do, if the majority opinion in this House were to prevail, is stop the Government’s attempt to bring the DUP back into the Assembly. That will be its only real effect. Neither the Taoiseach nor the other Irish Ministers said a word about it yesterday at Committee A (Sovereign Matters), because this Bill is not central to them. What is central to them is the ongoing negotiation, which is proceeding with good faith on both sides and from which I sincerely hope for a result. It is very important to say that.

A great part of what has been said is, I am sure, very well meant but, to put it bluntly, totally irrelevant. It is not the realpolitik of the moment. That is very important to understand. Dropping this Bill will not transform those negotiations into a better or worse state. They are going on now; they are facing some very difficult problems—I think there may be some progress—and we can certainly hope, as I am sure everybody in the House does, for an outcome on this. But it is simply pointless, bootless and, worst of all, deeply irrelevant to keep arguing and going on about the need to drop the Bill because it would lead to greater faith in negotiation. The negotiations are already in play, in good faith—end of story. However, it would have an effect on our ability to get the DUP back into government.

--- Later in debate ---

The most telling blow against the doctrine of necessity is that the Government themselves negotiated, signed and gleefully proclaimed the protocol as part of the withdrawal agreement, saying it had “got Brexit done”. Political convenience cannot now prevail against these weighty and damning arguments. If the Government have any hope or desire to persuade us against all these contrary views, surely the minimum they can do is share with us their full legal argument, by publishing the legal advice and justification they received. I beg to move my amendment.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords—oh, I give way to the noble and learned Lord.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

Thank you very much. Just so that we are not met with the argument that we never show legal advice as it is confidential—that there is no obligation to show it and we never do—and bearing in mind that I support the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in arguing that Clauses 2 and 3 should not stand part of the Bill, I have some simple questions.

First, do the Government agree that the provisions of the Good Friday agreement are placed at the very front of the protocol? If the worries about the Good Friday agreement are the problem, then what is the answer to the protocol affirming that need to protect it? Secondly—this is not about legal advice—have the Government considered, and if so in what way, using Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol itself? I spell it all out: nothing to do with international law, just within the realms of the actual protocol. If not, why not? Thirdly, what is the necessity for Clause 13 removing the Court of Justice from the European Union’s oversight role in the determination of disputes over the withdrawal agreement? That does not involve giving legal advice; it involves informing the House. Finally, and I am sorry to ask this of an individual Minister because it is a matter for every Minister, have Ministers given thought to the possibility that they have contravened their obligations under the Ministerial Code to comply with the law?

I ask those four questions on the basis of what is contained in the Constitution Committee’s report. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has raised them already, but can we just have specific answers to those questions, because without them Clauses 2 and 3 simply cannot stand?

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I thought my days of trying to beat the gun had left me behind a long time ago. I apologise.

I wish to speak in support of Amendment 3 and am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is back in his place. I have a recollection, and no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong, that on one previous occasion when this issue was raised, he expressed some sympathy for the idea that the legal advice should be made available. We have heard already in these proceedings that there is not a lawyer in the House who does not think that the Government are acting illegally and that, I suppose, is a pretty unusual state of affairs.

We have also seen that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee observed at paragraph 4 of its report:

“The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government’s international obligations.”


Given that the chorus of legal responses in the House is against the Government, perhaps the most notable being that of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, and given the extreme criticism of the Government contained in paragraph 4, I respectfully suggest that the convention that legal advice is not made public should be set aside on this occasion. It is a convention; it is not a rule of law. If I may put it so, this is a case of such novelty and importance that it justifies the setting aside of the convention.

I also understood my noble friend Lady Ludford to be raising some questions about the issue of necessity. The Advocate-General will recall that in the course of his long response at Second Reading, he referred to the case of Slovakia against Hungary. I took the opportunity to read that case, and what we discover is that it is not in point at all. It was a case where both states were in breach of legal obligations and the international court called on them both to carry out their relevant treaty obligations. That is nothing to do with the issues which we have before us. But the noble and learned Lord was not satisfied with Slovakia; he went to Canada in 1995. He prayed in aid decisions taken then by the Canadian Government in relation to the Grand Banks and their overfishing, but there was no question of a treaty on that occasion.

If these two cases are offered as support for the notion that this case is one where necessity is justified, I would respectfully suggest that they do not support that thesis. The Government will have to do something rather more if they are to establish any question that necessity arises in this matter.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said about this being a context where it would be enormously helpful to this House, and to Parliament generally, for the Government to publish legal advice so that we can understand why they assert, contrary to the views of most—if not all—lawyers, that what they propose to do is not a breach of international law. I anticipate, however, that the Advocate-General for Scotland will tell us that there is a convention that the Government are not prepared to publish legal advice. If that is his position, it would be enormously helpful to the House if he could at least address the substance of the criticisms that have been made of the Government’s position in international law. The noble and learned Lord told us at Second Reading that that was not the time or the place for him to address these arguments. I very much hope that today is the time and that he will tell the House, if he is not prepared to publish the legal advice, at least the substance of the Government’s argument.

First, why do they say that the test of necessity is satisfied, even though the protocol contains a mechanism for addressing disputes and even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, told us a few moments ago, the Government are reserving the right to use Article 16? How can it be necessary to set aside the protocol when the Government themselves reserve the right to use a provision in the protocol which is designed to address the very problems that they are concerned about?

Secondly—I dealt with these points at Second Reading, but we had no answer—how can there be an “imminent peril”, when this dispute has been going on for three years, since the protocol was agreed? Why is it imminent, which is the requirement in international law?

Thirdly, since they have not told us this, what is the Government’s case as to how the doctrine of necessity can be satisfied when the International Law Commission, the academic analysis and the case law all say, “You cannot rely on the doctrine of necessity when you, the state relying on it, have contributed to the problems which you are complaining about”? How can it not be the case that the Government have at least contributed to the perceived problem when they signed the protocol after negotiations? If we are not to have the legal advice, can we please have at least some indication or hint as to what the Government’s case is?

While we are dealing with that, could we also please be told whether the Government’s legal advice associates itself with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bew? They have never said this, but is their argument that the Good Friday agreement establishes the test of necessity? I would like to know, please, the answers to those basic questions so that when we proceed with Committee we are at least informed as to what the Government’s position actually is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bew (CB)]

Both the EU and the UK Government said at a number of points—three at least—that this agreement is designed to protect the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. Bluntly, it has not done that. We talk about legal opinion and what the Government’s argument has been. The former Lord Chancellor, in the Commons debate on this, made exactly that point. I read the protocol agreement and what did I see? There is a reference to the Good Friday agreement and the protection of it in all its dimensions. That is not actually happening. Both sides signed up in good faith hoping that was what would happen.

Both sides signed up to the protocol, which says that the UK single market should be protected in its integrity. It might be reasonably expected for that to happen. Do noble Lords think that the current provisions for checks are protecting the UK single market in all its integrity? The idea that we both signed up for stuff is very simple. I could go on forever about how “We both signed up for stuff.” To be absolutely honest, neither side fully understood what it was doing.

In particular, the negotiating history of this is clear. The EU did not understand the Good Friday agreement. Michel Barnier’s memoir is perfectly clear. We cannot make pigs fly. Michel Barnier’s memoir is based on a view of the agreement and the undertakings in it which is based on pigs flying. We cannot do it with the best will in the world and for all our enthusiasm to be loyal to something we signed up for. We cannot make pigs fly. His version of what he was protecting is not what it is—not by a long way. The reason for this is our negotiating defeat in 2017 and Mrs May, having effectively lost an election, desperately getting into talks. We cannot undo that; I am not saying we can. In history, we signed up for stuff and we are trying to find a compromise, but we cannot make pigs fly. We cannot make nonsense be operative. It does not matter how morally committed we are.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is there not a possible remedy here? If there are conflicting views, should we apply the principle of contra proferentem? Those who argue for a particular view have the onus of establishing that that view is the correct one.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

We are in a situation now where in Dublin it is accepted by those involved in the negotiation that they achieved a one-sided appropriation of this agreement. This then flows into the agreement of 2019. It was because of our weakness. We cannot undo it and we signed up for it—I get all that—none the less it is accepted by them that there is a problem. The problem cannot be met by saying “You signed up for it”, “Boris was a fool” or anything like that. It is a real problem at this moment. That is the key thing we are stuck with.

This agreement and the protocol say in numerous places—the former Lord Chancellor said it in the other place, so the Government have argued this very clearly—that it is about protecting the Good Friday agreement and for good measure protecting the integrity of the UK single market. This debate is rather different from the terms it has been couched in. I keep saying that the reality is about the interaction of a prior international agreement and the protocol agreement. There are different views of this.

While we are on this subject—regarding the evidence of Sir Jonathan Jones that was cited earlier—the Attorney-General in 2019 explicitly said in the other place, and it was repeated in this place, that there is a problem: where the protocol conflicts with the Good Friday agreement, the UK reserves the right to operate the existing prior international agreements. Who was working in the Attorney-General’s office then? I am certain there were some quite good lawyers when that happened.

We heard about Professor Mark Goldie’s observations, and they are absolutely true. He is a professor in public law in Cambridge who came to our committee in the Lords. I think Professor Boyle came to both committees. Professor Goldie listened to Professor Boyle, who I am certain does not support this Bill and who is much more open in principle to the arguments regarding international law, that the prior international agreement weighs heavily here. In the interaction of the two of them he personally argued Article 16 should be applied because you cannot demonstrate necessity unless it has been applied. I have often been attracted to that argument, but I am astounded by the number of Peers in this House who are mad keen for Article 16.

I am a historian, not a lawyer. I remember a few months ago when every civilised person was regarding the application of Article 16 and no one was saying “Oh, it’s in the treaty.” I remember the intensity of emotions—that this would be another foul act of disgraceful behaviour by the Government, even though it clearly is in the treaty. I am delighted there are so many converts today. I am not even sure; I think they might be right. It is a fashion change, not an international law change. The mood of the House has changed on this point, and nothing has changed in law.

I am not saying that Professor Goldie supports the Bill; I am certain he does not. As I said, I am not sure that Professor Boyle does either. Professor Goldie accepted the burden of Professor Boyle’s argument that it is very important to have upfront protection of the Good Friday agreement. The story about what international lawyers say—I am certain this will become even more complicated in this Chamber before this Bill finishes its passage—is a little bit more complicated. That is all I want to say. I am not saying that I know. I could not possibly say that sitting on this Bench with two very distinguished lawyers.

I am not making a claim about law but about history and what actually happened, how we got here and the mood on this, because that does rather matter. What I am saying is that the Government would be within their rights to say that there is a debate on this subject and there is a real problem. If you are not even talking—as most speakers today have not—about the interaction between the Good Friday agreement, the prior international agreement, and this agreement, then you are not even in the debate in any realistic way. They would have the right to say that.

Scottish Parliament: Independence Referendum

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend and agree with her that the next leader has a great responsibility to protect the union. I note that they will be the 56th Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. So far, we have had 55, of whom 11 were Scots, so that is a healthy 20% representation, which is one of the reasons why this union has been so successful: Scottish voices have been heard. We must ensure that that continues, which is why the recommendations of the Dunlop report—I share my noble friend’s admiration for it and its author—have formed the basis of the new inter-ministerial group architecture, which resulted in 440 inter-ministerial group meetings in 2021 alone.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, is Minister reinforced in his view that an independence referendum is not required by fact that the Lord Advocate —Scotland’s senior law officer—has ruled that an independence referendum would not be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

This is obviously now on its way to the Supreme Court. The UK Government are very clear that this is outside of competence—this is a reserved, not a devolved, matter. This now goes to the Supreme Court, which will adjudicate on it in the autumn. However, in the meantime, they press ahead: we have another glossy document called Renewing Democracy through Independence, which a professor at the University of Edinburgh, who is not party-political, described as “dismal, negative, uninspiring” and “utterly fanciful”. We still have no details on how Scotland will fund itself without a currency, how it will operate a hard border with England and how it will make the country more successful. This is thin gruel and, as the bard said,

“Auld Scotland wants nae skinking ware

That jaups in luggies”.

Northern Ireland Protocol: First Treasury Counsel

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, first, the Government’s intention is to protect the operation of the protocol. As the noble Baroness is aware, the Northern Ireland Executive has not been re-formed. It will not be re-formed in the face of such disquiet as currently exists. The Government intend that the protocol should be protected by the measures that they will bring forward, and they will bring forward simultaneously a statement of their legal position.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I was present on the occasion to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred, and I expressed an interest in the opinion apparently provided by the Attorney-General to the Government. We were assured that that opinion, or something similar, would be made available. If the noble and learned Lord checks Hansard, he will find that to be the case. But we should not really be surprised, because this is a Government of recidivists. They are very happy to offer the alternative of breaching the law. Indeed, they set out to do so in the internal markets Bill but had to retreat with their tail between their legs. The noble and learned Lord, like me, was reared in the Scottish legal tradition. He will remember his Roman law: pacta sunt servanda—promises ought to be kept. Why are the Government departing from this fundamental principle?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, pacts are indeed there to be kept: pacta sunt servanda. The Government are not departing from a legal principle; they are acting in good faith to preserve the protocol for the benefit of all communities within Northern Ireland.

Rule of Law: Law Officers

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I am not seeking to give a political justification for anything; I am providing a legal justification for saying that the UKIM Bill falls within the boundaries of international law, within the boundaries of our treaty obligations and within the boundaries of the rule of law.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, when the Advocate-General supported the withdrawal agreement in this House, did he find it as ambiguous and problematical as the Prime Minister now claims? If so, why did he vote for it?

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I was not concerned with either ambiguity or problems within the withdrawal agreement Bill; others may have taken a different view.

Sentencing Bill [HL]

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 25th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I must confess to some diffidence in finding myself between the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, since, unlike them, I have never had the responsibility of sentencing anyone. Indeed, it is difficult to resist the temptation to adopt the elegant observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, brevitatis causa, as lawyers are accustomed to say, but I wish to make some observations of my own.

There can hardly ever have been a legal Bill that enjoys such judicial and professional support as this one. Indeed, as has been said on at least one previous occasion, we could almost pass this Bill by acclamation. The Law Commission has fulfilled its responsibility to make the law clearer, shorter and more accessible, having rightly judged that sentencing legislation was inefficient and lacking in transparency. How could it do otherwise, as has already been referred to, when the analysis of 262 randomly selected cases from the Court of Appeal in 2012 revealed that 36% were illegal sentences? The question that arises from that is: what guidance was given to those who passed those sentences and what happened to those who had been sentenced in that way, illegally?

The Bill’s approach is novel, with the creation of a code allied to the use of a clean sweep. My question is whether a similar approach may be appropriate in other areas of the law. Indeed, I suppose that my question is really for the Law Commission: is it now looking for other such opportunities? I welcome the exception to protect the fundamental rights of an offender and the Bar Council’s pragmatic endorsement of the proposals on Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and on retroactivity.

Finally, there is an excellent impact assessment that justifies close reading, but for some reason there are no Explanatory Notes to the Bill. Why not?

Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Order 2019

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Lords Chamber

For all those reasons, I welcome the way in which the Minister has introduced the order to the House today. There are underlying issues which have to be recognised. Much is happening of a positive nature, despite all our difficulties. I hope that, one day, this order will be unnecessary.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in a debate on Northern Ireland, but I am moved to do so by the most eloquent expressions of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. I have personal knowledge of the extent to which the judiciary in Northern Ireland have had to accept quite severe disruption to what we would regard as ordinary family life. It is right that this House recognises that, as the noble and right reverend Lord has done. Those of us who have practised in other jurisdictions have never had the misfortune to face the stresses which necessarily arise, particularly in the prosecution of cases which raise issues of the use of explosives or things of that manner.

In his introduction of this measure, my interest was aroused by the Minister’s reference to the comparison between jury and non-jury cases in relation to convictions. Is he able to provide a similar comparison in relation to appeals? It would be interesting to know how far the question of appeal was more or less reflected in the non-jury part of the system, rather than the part covered in the usual way by jury trial.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, in considering these proposals, I cannot but recall that we are standing on the eve of an anniversary: 75 years ago so many young men—and some women—from the Province of Ulster gave their blood, their lives and, in many cases, members of their family, to preserve the rule of law and the freedoms which we cherish so greatly. It is therefore noteworthy that the Minister implied—indeed, made explicit—that the measures before us are unfortunate and distasteful but necessary. I am no longer privy to the analysis which would suggest that that is the case, but I accept the point of view of the Minister and the Government on this.

Since we recognise the extraordinary and unfortunate nature of these proposals, it is therefore essential that not only will there be a regular review of this but that there will be a deep and meaningful study between each review. In the context of the very eloquent and pertinent words of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, will the Minister tell us, in summing up, a little more of the detail of the oversight and review process and the criteria that the noble and right reverend Lord asked for by which such a judgment will be made? Ultimately, it will be made by the Government, but presumably they will give great weight to the recommendations of the independent reviewer. I think it would be helpful for everyone to know just how seriously that is taken, by understanding a little more about the process.

Withdrawal Agreement: Attorney General’s legal opinion on the Joint Instrument and Unilateral Declaration

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, as regards the legal advice, I refer back to paragraph 7 of the Attorney-General’s letter, in which he said that the,

“Joint Instrument extend beyond mere interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement and represent materially new legal obligations and commitments”.

To that extent, we have moved on. But of course, he also made absolutely clear that the legal risk that had been addressed in the context of whether there was a unilateral right to leave the backstop had not changed and that there was no internationally lawful means of exiting the protocol’s arrangements except by agreement. But context is everything.

On the second point, there appear ample grounds for supposing that, in taking this forward, we will arrive at a resolution of an issue that troubles lawyers but I suspect does not trouble politicians quite as much: whether or not the backstop is somehow a black or white outcome. It is not an outcome that is anticipated nor one that we believe we will have to address, and if we have to address it, we do not believe it will ever be permanent, and that for political reasons alone.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord to name an alchemist who ever succeeded in his determination to turn lead into gold, but perhaps that is for another occasion. Since we are talking about risk, it is important to remember that one risk that featured very strongly in noble Lords’ consideration of these matters is the possibility that anything that seemed to have the effect of recreating a border between the north and south of Ireland was a risk we were not willing to take. One reason for that was the fragility, albeit that it is still in existence, of the Belfast agreement. I say with due respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that when one is considering risk, this is not crossing the road: it is a risk that could have the effect of bringing to an end many years of fragile peace. In those circumstances, it is hardly surprisingly that people want to be pretty certain, before that risk is taken, that to do so is not likely to lead to an adverse outcome.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, I must say that I entirely disagree with his analysis. The whole point of the present withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol is to ensure that we adhere not only to the terms but to the spirit of the Belfast agreement. That is why the backstop has been formulated in the manner in which it has. We will leave the backstop only when, or if, there is a need to put in place alternative structures that do not require a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I reiterate my belief that we will never actually enter the backstop in the first place. We have that period up to December 2020 in which to address this issue and it is not beyond the wit of man or alchemist to resolve such an issue.

Brexit: Legal Position of Withdrawal Agreement

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord, who draws on a great deal of experience where these matters are concerned. I entirely agree with his observation: it would render the law officers’ position almost impossible when advising government fully, candidly and without reservation, if it was felt that that advice was then to be put into the public domain—let alone put into the public domain when we were carrying on relevant negotiations such as those we are carrying on with the European Union.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

I regret to find myself in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I come back to the question of convention. No one can be in any doubt of the significance of the events that we are living through at the moment. Casting back in my memory, the only similar occasion I can think of is the decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein. On the eve of the debate in the House of Commons the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who I see in his place, answered a Written Question from—if my memory serves me right—the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, setting out the legal basis and justification for military action. Surely when the circumstances demand it, the convention can be dispensed with.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the noble Lord, the circumstances in which the totality of the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, came out were rather more complex than that, but let us address the immediate issue. What he was considering in that context was the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the action contemplated by the Government. That is not the position that pertains here.