Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Trevethin and Oaksey

Report stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I supported these amendments in Committee and I should like to do so again today. I cannot help feeling that there is just a hint—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, put it earlier—of the generals fighting the last war, because it is very obvious why Clause 3 is there: it is to head off what was seen to be a trend at least in the decision in Miller 2.

I will make two points, if I may. First, following my noble friend Lord Butler of Brockwell, I agree that the clause is unnecessary. One of the things that was said by the Supreme Court at the beginning of Miller 2 was to distinguish the Prorogation issue with which it was concerned and Dissolution. It was made quite clear in a very few words at the start of that decision that decisions about Dissolution were nothing to do with the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made that point very clearly when he said that this is the most political of decisions that could be taken. That is a very clear warning to the courts that it is nothing to do with them. It is unnecessary, because I cannot see the courts engaging with a Dissolution issue in addition to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton.

The second point that I would like to say a little more about is the unwise precedent. The problem here is that the language of paragraph (c) in Clause 3 removes entirely from the courts the possibility of determining the limit or extent of the powers. The reverse of the coin is that it is the Executive who are the determination and who decide the limit or extent of their own powers. Earlier today, the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, said that this was the basis for a dictatorship. My noble friend Lord Butler referred in Committee to a number of examples not very far away from us in Europe, where there is perhaps a trend moving towards that. We have to be extremely careful not to give a signal to a Government that they can get away with an exclusion clause of this kind. The question is how far the clause should go, and it is paragraph (c) of Clause 3 that is completely objectionable, leaving it to the Executive to determine the extent and limits of their own powers.

The question of precedent is worth dwelling on. I admire greatly the skills of the parliamentary draftsmen. They have their own skills and traditions, one of which is that they are very determined to follow precedent in the way in which they engage with legislation. This has great value, because it means that there is constancy in the way in which issues are expressed in our legislation, which is of a very high standard. My concern is that, whatever may be said today about this not setting a precedent, it will nevertheless be there in the books, and the draftsmen will, some years ahead, say, “That is what was done in 2022. It is an example that we can follow.” That is danger that I fear in this clause, which is unnecessary. It is unnecessary, so we should not risk the creation of a precedent that, in future years, we may deeply regret.

[Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)]

My Lords, I respectfully agree with much of what the noble and learned Lord said about the drafting of this clause and agree that it should not be treated as a precedent in the future for other ouster clauses. The drafting is unprecedented, because the decision of the Supreme Court in Miller 2 was itself unprecedented. I do not agree with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and I will briefly explain why.

I regard with horror, and I suggest that your Lordships should regard with horror, the prospect of what one might notionally call Miller 3: namely, a piece of litigation challenging the propriety or legal effectiveness of a Dissolution. In Miller 1, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed, now President of the Supreme Court, warned against the legalisation of political issues and observed that it was fraught with danger, not least for the judiciary. There is a danger that, because the Supreme Court in Miller 2 found itself able to determine that case against the Government without getting involved in the underlying political issues, one might suppose that a similar exercise could be undertaken in relation to litigation about Dissolution without the judges having to address political questions in an objectionable way. That reasoning would be fallacious.

It is necessary to bear in mind what happened in Miller 2 in relation to the evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is about to rise, will be able to help us with that if need be. The government evidence in Miller 2 could politely be described as sparse. It consisted of a handful of partially redacted memos and there was no witness statement, as far as I understand it, which dealt substantively with the reasons for—that is, the justification for—the Prorogation. Why that was, I have no idea. It might have been pressure of time. It might have been—though I doubt it—some kind of Machiavellian strategy on the part of the Government, who were unafraid to lose the case. It might have been because no one was prepared to make a witness statement. It might have been for the legitimate reason that the legal position was being argued for that justiciability had to be taken as a preliminary issue, as the Divisional Court held that it should be, prior to any consideration of evidence. Never mind; there was no good evidence from the Government.

That enabled the Supreme Court, when it came to apply its test as to reasonable justification, to say in robust terms that there was no evidence before the court that would begin to support the contention that there was reasonable justification for the Prorogation. In that way, the Supreme Court avoided the need to tackle a question that might have arisen if the Government had given their evidence in a different way. The Prime Minister might have said: “Look, Parliament has made Brexit very difficult. I am engaged in an immensely important negotiation with foreign counterparties, which is going to affect the future of this country for many years. I regard it as desirable to convey the message to my negotiating counterparties that I mean business. That is why I intend to prorogue for an unusually long period of time.” The Prime Minister might have said that and that might have been true—I do not know. If that had been the evidence before the court, it is inconceivable that the Supreme Court justices would have felt able to enter on to that terrain, because it was nakedly political. That is the way that it might have gone.

That indicates that allowing even the faintest possibility of litigation about the legal effectiveness of a Dissolution is a grave error. It should be unthinkable that the judges should be forced to engage with that type of issue. I respectfully agree with what I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and others, have indicated—that it is very unlikely that the judges would entertain litigation of this nature. They would wisely be reluctant to do so.

But we should recognise the risk of litigation of this nature being initiated for collateral reasons. We are contemplating a period leading up to a general election. All the politicians will be on manoeuvres. There are potentially collateral advantages to litigating points of this nature, so Miller 3, or something like it, is conceivable. It should not happen. That is why, even though the drafting causes me concern, the ouster clause is good and this amendment should not be agreed to.