Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Judge Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I think I am the only Member of the House who received this letter by special messenger. Having received it, I think I had better read it to your Lordships. It is from the Executive and it is called “Restoring Parliamentary control”. This is how it reads, ignoring the introductions:

“To achieve the object of restoring control back to Parliament, please would you surrender to the Executive powers to repeal or otherwise nullify or dispose of as we think fit some 4,000 or so statutory instruments of great public importance, such as employment laws, environment laws, food safety laws, et cetera (which covers existing laws of which we are still unaware)? These laws were imposed on us by the European Union, but we do have to admit that was with your consent in 1972 in primary legislation. In any event, that is a long time ago and we can reduce the troublesome processes of consent to a virtual formality which would save you all much time and work.

We shall exercise these new revocation powers by the end of the year, but we do not yet know what we shall replace them with. But if we do not manage to replace them or any of them, notwithstanding the urgency, we shall do so by June 2026 or whenever.

Now we must clarify the replacement process. Please would you also surrender to the Executive powers to decide which of three distinct processes may be used for the replacement process for each individual statutory instrument? These are: first, power to decide not to replace any of the relevant laws that we have revoked; secondly, on whatever basis that we think appropriate to replace such laws to achieve their or similar objectives; and, thirdly, to make fresh new laws to cover the topics addressed in the 4,000 or so statutory instruments which have been revoked and make alternative provisions, whether or not the provision achieves the same or similar objectives, as we think appropriate.

Finally, we ask you to surrender power to us to enable the use of secondary legislation to change any existing statute which may have any bearing on the exercise of any of the powers you have surrendered to us in relation to the 4,000 statutory instruments. PS Existing statute includes this very Act itself.

By agreeing to all these separate surrenders, Parliament will have taken back control. We trust you agree.”

Newport Wafer Fab

Lord Judge Excerpts

Thursday 7th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

This is a commercial transaction. Nexperia already has existing semiconductor facilities in the United Kingdom. It entered into an additional commercial transaction and, therefore, that is being considered under the terms of the National Security and Investment Act.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

I wonder whether the Minister thinks it would be a good idea for him to advise Parliament to be more careful about entrusting these wide powers to government Ministers.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord entertains us royally with his views on delegated powers. On every Bill I have brought before this House on behalf of the Government we have had a long discussion about the use of delegated powers, and I am sure we will do so again. At the end of the day, these are difficult issues. Someone has to take a decision, and the proper person to do so, in my view, is the Business Secretary. That was the power granted to him under the Act. He will do so in due course, and I am sure that when he has we will have further debates on this matter.

Subsidy Control Bill

Lord Judge Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, just said. I liked him shouting “tosh!” at the Government; that was great. That is a very gentle word for it. He also sent me into a mild panic, because I had not realised that my noble friend Lady Bennett had tabled a clause stand part debate in this group. All I can do is repeat her explanatory statement which says that this

“is intended to elicit why Bank of England monetary policy subsidies are excluded from the provisions of the Bill.”

I hope there is an answer on that in the Minister’s speech. I had thought the noble Lord, Lord Fox, was perhaps talking about my Amendment 33 which we have of course already debated. I thank him for his remarks.

On this group generally, I have argued many times about government regulation-making powers, because I am absolutely sick of the Government bringing skeleton legislation that needs little more than a parliamentary rubber stamp for them to make substantive law by future regulations. This is a power grab that most of us absolutely abhor. However, this is a unique case. I want to support these amendments for new regulation-making powers because the alternative envisaged by this Bill is that, instead of making regulations which are passed by Parliament, the Government would simply make a decree and then inform Parliament after the fact. I support the amendments.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to attend Second Reading. I had other commitments in the House, so ask noble Lords to forgive me.

I put my name down in support of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and was delighted to do so. However, I am sure he will forgive me if I explain that I am actually not supporting him but the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is what we should be looking at. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, thought there might be some erudition, but there is no need for it; this is a perfectly simple constitutional aberration.

When the Minister comes to reply, I would like him to kindly look at paragraph 16 of the committee’s report, where there are three “extraordinary” provisions—that was the word used—which need attention. Unless he can answer in a way that convincingly refutes their effect, we might as well keep on fighting about this. As I say, it is a constitutional aberration and we should not have it. It is an amazing thing for one of our committees to say that a subsection, in this case Clause 47(7), should be removed from the Bill. We need to know why it should not.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I shall add two very short points. First, it seems to me absolutely fundamental to a democratic society that the laws made by a legislature permit everything to be done openly and stop anyone prohibiting publication at any time. As the committee said, there is enough discretion in the earlier subsection. Secondly, accessible and open legislation is essential to the rule of law. It seems to me that this clause is an attack on both democracy and the rule of law and has no place in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We think that subsection (7) is important for financial stability and legal certainty but, as I have said on the other amendments in this group, I am happy to take this away and look at the matter further.

This is the very effect that assistance, and the direction that facilitates that assistance, would be deployed to avoid. Northern Rock serves as a clear example, where the revelation that the firm was in receipt of emergency liquidity assistance led to a run on the bank. That exacerbated its problems and, in the end, hastened its failure. Consequently, if disclosure of financial stability directions cannot be deferred, it would effectively render them unusable in situations where it is necessary to provide lending on a covert basis. Making a direction unusable in this way would be especially problematic if the success of the financial assistance was dependent on the use of a financial stability direction to disapply any of the requirements.

In relation to the specific statement being referenced in paragraph 16 of the report, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, that statement makes it clear that the concern is not about the risk of parliamentary defeat. The concern surfaced in the statement is the perception of stakeholders of a risk that non-approval could result in the rejection or undermining of the proposed subsidy. In that circumstance, the primary concern would not be in relation to a defeat in Parliament but that, as a result of that risk perception among stakeholders, the subsidy would be ineffective in the short term or even rejected by the proposed recipient. This would mean that the use of the power would not even get to the point of a vote.

The current drafting of Clause 47(7) provides a clear mechanism in law for delaying publication and a basis on which the Treasury can make the decision that the publication would undermine the purposes for which the direction was given. When the Treasury considers that publication would no longer undermine the purpose of the direction, it would at that time—this comes to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—be required to publish that direction in accordance with the duty in Clause 47(6). Therefore, subsection (7) simply makes explicit the ability to delay publication where that publication would undermine the purpose for which the direction was given. It does not provide a means for the Government to avoid scrutiny indefinitely.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

What is the point of Clause 47(7) if the object is to allow, in appropriate circumstances, a deferral or a delay in the publication of the information?

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Might I add to my noble and learned friend’s question? To whom is the information to be given? Who needs to know about this direction? It is rather important to understand how the scheme is supposed to work. Presumably, the publication is to serve a purpose; one needs to know to whom it will be disseminated.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Judge Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th December 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Judge]

Leave out “not”.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I am relieved that Clauses 44, 45 and 47 are being removed from the Bill. They were constitutionally improper and a constitutional aberration. They subverted the rule of law. As we have known for centuries, and was summed up by a former Lord Chief Justice in the 17th century, Edward Coke, the rule of law is our “safest shield”.

The way in which the debate over the Bill unfolded perhaps reminded us of something else, something which perhaps noble Lords do not need to be reminded of, but needs occasionally to be drawn to the attention of the Executive: we are a Parliament of two Chambers. The Executive has no sovereignty; Parliament has sovereignty. Of course, the Commons is the first, the prime, the pre-eminent, the most significant and the most important part of the two Houses of Parliament, but that does not mean that this House is without some modest power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not a lawyer, as I am frequently reminded in your Lordships’ House, but I am a historian by vocation and occasional practice, and I know that history is the study of cause and effect. I have heard one version of a proto-history just put to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer; there are many other versions which no doubt could and will be put—indeed, some have been put in this debate. The thing to do now is to move forward. Once all the documents are revealed, no doubt people will be able to say what had an effect on what. We are here today to make a judgment on carrying draft legislation, a Bill, forward.

I, too, welcome prodigal sons, and indeed prodigal daughters, if I may say so. The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to say that the Government had graciously changed their position. I heard less comment in the debate—although the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to it—about the change of mind, if I may use the phrase, by your Lordships. I hope it is forthcoming on Clauses 42, 43 and 46. I welcome that change of mind. I do not believe that unfettered access should have been called into doubt in your Lordships’ House, and I heard no one speak against that principle, although the noble Lord, Lord Newby, appeared at one moment to exult in the idea that it might not exist. I welcome and am grateful for what I hope will be the change of mind on those other clauses, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will be able to confirm that.

I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, although I do not want to pick him out particularly, that I do not think that, whoever he or she may be, personal vilification of the Prime Minister is a conducive or beneficial way to broaden consensus in debate in your Lordships’ House. I counsel the noble Lord that vilification of the current Prime Minister will not particularly persuade me to listen to his arguments.

As I said in my opening speech—I thank noble Lords for their comments on the facts of it, not the speech —the Government will not be opposing the removal of Clauses 44, 45 and 47. I can confirm to the noble and learned Lord that new Clause 45 is in accordance with the rule of law. However, as I have argued, the remaining clauses in the Bill are vital to the Government delivering on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.

I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that I will be repeating a Statement tomorrow, and I will obviously answer questions on that matter. I am sorry, but I do not make the rules and customs of the usual channels in this place, but I understand her feeling, and no doubt she will examine that Statement tomorrow. I do not think I am telling anybody anything that they do not know when I say that, unfortunately, that Statement will be repeated relatively late tomorrow.

The clauses which I hope your Lordships will allow to return seek to protect Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory and internal market, and that is something, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, recited, that not only this Government and the Northern Ireland Executive but the EU absolutely committed to—unfettered access, so please let us see that back in the Bill.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the history, I hope that the reality of the day is that people in different parts of this House will be able to have some satisfaction in where we have reached at this point. I always agree that, in life, negotiation is desirable. As I said in my opening remarks, Clauses 42, 43 and 46 have now been sent to us twice by the democratically elected House, and on those I urge your Lordships, if the Question is put, not to vote them out again. I beg to move.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

I do not think there is anything I could usefully add; I think we should get on.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C) agreed.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Judge Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th November 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Judge]

70: Clause 46, page 37, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) Section 11 ceases to have effect when Articles 5 to 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol cease to apply.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal of Part 5 (Northern Ireland Protocol) at Committee Stage.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Judge]

77: Clause 50, page 39, line 6, leave out subsection (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal of Part 5 (Northern Ireland Protocol) at Committee Stage.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Judge Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 23rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Judge]

25: Clause 11, page 8, leave out line 17 and insert “the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal of Part 5 (Northern Ireland Protocol) at Committee Stage.

[Lord Judge (CB) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 25 and the other amendments in the group are consequential on the amendments made in Committee when Part 5 was removed. To give your Lordships a simple example, Amendment 25 concerns Clause 11(8), which says:

“In this section ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’ has the same meaning as in section 43.”


Clause 43 has now gone and the provision is therefore meaningless. The fact of the matter is that the remaining amendments relate to provisions in the Bill that are absent of content now that the link formerly with Part 5 has been removed. I beg to move.

Amendment 25 agreed.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Judge Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th November 2020 Lords Chamber

Debate on whether Clause 42 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Judge (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is only three weeks since an overwhelming majority of this House regretted Part 5 of the Bill. We regretted that the enactment of Part 5 would undermine the rule of law and damage our international reputation. It was a regret shared by members of all parties and none, and all political affiliations and none. Our procedures do not, however, permit us now to record that we are not content that Part 5 should stand part of the Bill. We must address the question clause by clause. I make it clear that at the end of the debate I intend to divide the House, if necessary, on every single clause in Part 5 to record what I hope will be an overwhelming majority view of the House: that we are not content.

Second Reading proceeded largely on the basis of the Government’s concession—maybe their confession—that the provisions in Part 5 breached international law. Clauses 44, 45, and 47, are not the only troublesome clauses. The Committee has not yet heard much criticism, but there is criticism to be directed about Clauses 42 and 43. I adhere to every criticism I made at Second Reading. It is very recent; I do not propose to repeat those criticisms. However, my concern about Part 5 is quite undiminished. Indeed, my criticism has been reinforced by attending the Committee stages of the earlier parts of the Bill, which highlighted the alarming extent of the secondary powers sought by the Government and utterly vindicated the criticisms of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee.

However, for the purposes of today, my basic premise is that Part 5 should be seen as a whole, with each and every clause in it interlocking and related to each other. It is a complete, self-contained, cohesive whole: a programme, or a structure, on which Clause 42 is the starting point and foundation, and Clause 47 is the culmination. For a start: just because the clauses in Part 5 work together in the same structure, so they are all contaminated by the contamination of each of them.

However, this part goes further. It proposes that a Minister should be vested with unconditional power to disapply the Northern Ireland protocol. We have heard so much about this that I shall not go through what it amounts to—we all know. For example, the proposal does not require the Minister first to have tried the remedial provisions in the protocol or the withdrawal agreement; nor does it postpone any ministerial action until the negotiations with the European Union have broken down, or until such time as the Government wish to proceed on the basis that the EU has been acting in bad faith. It flies in the face of our binding agreement that we should refrain from any measures that could jeopardise the objectives of the withdrawal agreement.

It is striking that Part 5 stands separate from the rest of the Bill. The Bill addresses numerous fundamental questions relating to the UK internal market. It does so identically for Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. You cannot draw the slightest distinction between the ways in which the legislation applies to the four nations, save perhaps for Clause 11, which deals with the Northern Ireland protocol and, importantly, how market access throughout the United Kingdom arising from the application of the protocol should work. That, as I emphasised, is how the protocol is to be made to work. Beyond that, every single provision in the Bill applies equally, with all its flaws, to all four nations, and Northern Ireland is rightly included equally with the other nations in the arrangements for a strong, open internal UK market—that is, until we come to Part 5.

There is no Part 5 that applies to Scotland, Wales or England. There is no special protocol for any of them. Part 5 is expressly confined to Northern Ireland—it says so. Why the difference? Why are the other nations not blessed with their own Part 5? I suggest that there is a short answer: because Part 5 has the single purpose of enabling the Government, as and when they wish, to nullify their international obligations—and, what is more, to do so unilaterally, without recourse to the dispute resolution created in the protocol and the agreement. Surely that is why there is no equivalent provision for Scotland, Wales or England. However, whether that is the purpose of Part 5 or not, in law, that will be its result.

I suspect it will be suggested that Clauses 42 and 43—and perhaps Clause 46—require a different approach to Clauses 44, 45 and 47. One obvious distinction between them is that Clauses 42, 43 and 46 do not fall within the Government’s concession that the other clauses break international law. With respect, that approach is flawed. The clauses in Part 5 cannot be cast into self-contained silos. Clauses 44, 45 and 47 are integral to the whole of Part 5 and pollute all the clauses. Beyond that, merely because the Government have made no concessions about Clauses 42 and 43, it does not follow that they are far from reproach.

Clause 42 starts with aspirational objectives but then comes down to define its relevant purposes, which, first, include implementing the Northern Ireland protocol and, secondly, extend to

“otherwise dealing with matters arising out of, or related to”

the protocol. “Otherwise dealing” are weasel words; they can certainly be seen to contradict “implementing”. This provides power to dilute the protocol, of course. More important, perhaps, here comes the rub: the purposes, as Clause 42(2)(c) provides, include the movement of goods in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom—that is, not Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland. That is not a provision for the UK internal market. If enacted, that function conflicts with the protocol. I respectfully suggest that Clause 42, at the very least, undermines it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judge (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is getting rather late. There is a lot to cover. If I may, I will deal with it in sequence. I took the unusual step of seeking the view of the House at Second Reading in order that, if the House agreed with my submission, the Government could take their time, reflect on the result and come back with some counterproposals about how to deal with these clauses. We heard nothing.

I am asked to pay attention to the views expressed by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and by other noble Lords from Northern Ireland. I have paid attention not only to their views, but to the expressed view of every single Member of this House. As I said during the last debate on these issues, I am grateful to those who disagree with me as well as to those who agree. Strong views are held; the debate is courteous and we have to make up our mind between different points of view. When I think of the problems in Northern Ireland and the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others, I bear in mind that their real complaint is against what this Government did way back—about a year ago—when they thought it appropriate to enter into this protocol.

I also bear in mind the views expressed by others in Northern Ireland. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, gave best voice to the principle of the view of peace. I am well aware of all the issues arising in Northern Ireland. I recognise that there are deeply held views and that differently held views are held on all sides.

As to the Bill, I rather thought that we had tried to identify, in Clauses 42 and 43, what the problem was. With regard to Clause 42, I have no quarrel with the expressions of aspiration in Clause 42(1) but, as I tried to explain to the Committee, the problem arises with Clause 42(2), where the relevant purpose is not only implementing but otherwise dealing, by regulation, with matters arising out of the Northern Ireland protocol. One of the other purposes was moving goods within the United Kingdom, including movement that involves movement in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom. That is not the internal market.

Clause 43, too, is aspirational: unfettered access to the UK internal market for Northern Ireland goods is aspirational. However, when you turn to how it is to be operated, you run into Clause 43(3)(b), which immediately links this provision to Clauses 44, 45 and 47. Those are unacceptable clauses: the majority of the House made it clear that they were unacceptable at Second Reading. I do not accept, therefore, that we have not looked at these clauses in some detail: we have.

With regard to Clauses 44, 45 and 47, I simply rely on the Government’s own position—which is, quite rightly, that of the Minister, a man of integrity who has not sought to defend them against being in breach of international law. I will say no more about these clauses. We have gone over and over them.

The problem with Clause 46, if it were to stand alone, is simply that it reflects one provision in a whole part of the Bill, and it would be extraordinary for it to stand alone. I hope to persuade the Committee—I hope we have persuaded the Committee—that we should now proceed to deal with it.

I have been asked many other questions. As far as the fundamental problems relating to treaties are concerned, we must consider this as a matter of reality and assess whether we would want to break treaties in circumstances that did not fall within the permissive provisions of the Vienna convention. Do we just tear up treaties without reason? If we have a reason, we have a reason that would probably fall within the Vienna convention.

My other point is that suggestions that this is all lawyerly are deeply offensive. I happen to be a lawyer, but the rule of law is perfectly well understood by everyone—not just lawyers, but doctors, Indian chiefs, warriors, anyone you like. The rule of law is something to which every country and every citizen of every country has a passionate commitment. The rule of law has come to us, in this generation, as a very precious heritage that we owe to our fathers and grandfathers, and to much blood being shed. We have to pass on that principle, untarnished and unlimited, to our children and their children, so that it continues to be a salient, wonderful principle of this country—one that we can all espouse and aspire to and one that protects the weak against the strong, the vulnerable against the powerful, and, most important of all, the weak, the strong, the vulnerable and the powerful against overmuch incursion by the authorities of the state.

This Bill is riddled with powers being given by way of regulation, which are far, far from acceptable. If the crisis that could happen were to happen, there would be no reason whatever why the Minister or Government could not start again. They could come back with reasons why they need their legislation—legislation which complies with the basic principles of our constitution. I see no reason whatever to withdraw the indication I gave at the beginning of the debate that there should be a Division. I start with Clause 42.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Judge Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Amendment moved on Monday 19 October by

[Lord Judge]

At end to insert “but that this House regrets that Part 5 of the bill contains provisions which, if enacted, would undermine the rule of law and damage the reputation of the United Kingdom.

Relevant documents: 14th Report from the EU Select Committee, 24th and 26th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 17th Report from the Constitution Committee.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, yesterday we heard some remarkable speeches, not least from the two debutants: the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz. Over eight hours we heard the Bill broken down into three areas of serious concern: its illegality, its threat to the union, and its structural limitations. The analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, backed up by many other legal Peers, was clear: this Bill establishes a position whereby the United Kingdom breaks international law.

The counterarguments were less numerous, and they were weak. On the one hand, they said that this is an anti-Brexit rearguard action—something easily dismissed by taking note of the powerful speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Lympne and Lord Lamont of Lerwick, neither of whom is publicly gripped by pro-EU sentiment. The other line taken was that because other countries have broken the law, we can too. It is the cry of the playground: “They started it!” My noble friend Lord Thomas and others demonstrated that that argument is neither here nor there.

This Bill transcends legal affront—and here we should thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, in his speech, set out a moral case against this part of the Bill. As he put it:

“Our reputation as a nation, our profoundly good and powerful influence and example … will suffer great harm if law-breaking is pursued”.—[Official Report, 19/10/20; cols. 1293-4.]


That point was backed up by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup:

“The Government exercise authority through the law; if they undermine respect for the law, they undermine both themselves and the stability of our society”.—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. 1348.]


It is fair to say that the noble and gallant Lord knows a thing or two about the importance of moral courage.

This is not an academic argument. If we needed to be reminded how this Bill can affect the lives of people on the island of Ireland, my noble friend Lord Alderdice, speaking from his vast experience, set out what is at stake, and as my noble friend Lady Suttie said:

“The Northern Ireland protocol, which is far from perfect, is none the less a carefully constructed compromise to try to maintain peace and stability on the island of Ireland and to protect the Good Friday/Belfast agreement”.—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. 1315.]


Quite.

Among yesterday’s speeches came a quite remarkable intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Barwell—a man with a unique window on this process. He recalled how, in a meeting with EU officials, Theresa May asked why the Northern Ireland backstop had to be set out in such operational detail. She was told:

“‘Because, bluntly, we do not think you will be there for much longer and we do not trust what is going to follow in terms of living up to any commitments’”.—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. 1359.]


So, far from sending the EU a stern message about the UK’s resolve, the Bill simply confirms its suspicions about our trustworthiness—or rather, our lack of it.

Moving on to devolution, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asserted:

“These powers are not designed to take powers from the devolved Administrations”.—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. 1284.]


My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and my noble friends Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord German and others made it clear that the reality is something quite different. The Bill pulls back power to Westminster at the expense of the devolution settlement. Many Peers, such as my noble friend Lady Humphreys, pointed to the glaring absence of any reference to the common framework in the Bill.

For its part, the Constitution Committee is not convinced that opportunities for managing the UK internal market through the common framework process have been exhausted—and neither am I. By abstracting the internal market from these frameworks and pushing ahead unilaterally against opposition from devolved authorities, the UK Government are putting the common frameworks at risk. I have to ask: is that what Her Majesty’s Government want? That is what it looks like.

In light of progress being made with the common frameworks, my noble friend Lord Newby questioned, with considerable support, whether the Bill is needed at all. However, in his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, claimed:

“Without the Bill a Welsh lamb producer … could end up unable to sell their lamb as easily … Scotch whisky producers could lose access to supply from English barley farmers”.—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. 1282.]


My noble friend Lord Purvis asked some specific questions regarding whisky. I would like to ask: what possible grounds are there to support the Welsh lamb claim?

Further, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, also said that the Bill

“will allow professionals such as doctors and nurses, qualified in one of the UK nations, to work in any other”.—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. 1283.]

If by this the Minister is saying that, without the Bill, English doctors will not be able to practise in Wales, I challenge him; if not, what is he saying? I think these comments are entirely baseless and I ask the noble Lord, Lord True, either to demonstrate that they are rooted in fact or to withdraw them.

The third element of the Bill is the role of the CMA as the home for an office for the internal market. As ever, I listened to my noble friend Lady Bowles on such issues. The Committee stage will see significant debate on this.

It will come as no surprise that noble Lords on these Benches will support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, but as my noble friend Lord Newby made clear, it cannot stop there. This was backed by a strident call to arms from the noble Lord, Lord Butler. He and others made it clear that your Lordships have to be prepared to stand by the splendid speeches that we heard yesterday when we get to the sharp end of this Bill. In that regard, your Lordships’ House should be indebted to my noble friend Lord McNally for outlining the outcome of the Cunningham conventions. As he explained, we should not be inhibited in standing up to the Government.

The conclusions that I draw from yesterday’s debate are: the illegality of this Bill must be removed; Clauses 44, 45 and 47 should be excised and the Henry VIII clauses removed; the role of the common frameworks as the prime mover in a single market must be reinstated; and consensus must be sought on the principles of the Bill where the market is managed and disputes are dealt with. Finally, if there needs to be an office for the internal market, it needs a different governance structure from that proposed.

We all know that this Bill is illegal, flouts important constitutional issues and threatens devolution. More than that, we know that it has already eroded trust in our institutions and is damaging the reputation of this country, which promotes the rule of law. Finally, and perhaps most insidiously, we know that any law that seeks to permit the Executive to break laws is morally wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judge (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate, including those who disagree with me. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—I am sure the noble Lord will not be upset with me if I say that it is an absolute delight to know that there are now three Members of your Lordships’ House who support Leicester City Football Club.

The debate has reinforced my anxiety about the Bill. If it is enacted, we shall be giving the Executive the most extraordinarily wide powers, and until the debate I had not fully appreciated the dangers to the union of giving the Executive in London effectively uncontrolled power over the way in which the internal market will work. That reinforces my anxiety. I wish to make just a couple of points.

I notice that the Minister has not resiled from the proposition which some of those who support him were keen to advance: that the Bill, if enacted, would not break international law or break the law. That it would not break the law seems a crucial element in this. The fact of the matter is that the law would be broken. The Minister in the other place said so; the Treasury Solicitor resigned; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, resigned. There can be no getting away from it, and, to be fair, the Minister in our House has not sought to do so. That is the starting point.

I then listened to a number of arguments suggesting that the Government are entirely justified anyway because the EU has been acting in bad faith. Although the Minister did not use those words, he just touched upon it by referring to the way in which the negotiations had broken down and to the Prime Minister describing how the EU was refusing to negotiate. If any of that has force, the remedies are there to be found within the Act, the agreement, the protocol and within the ordinary rules which govern international treaties where one side is breaking the purpose and spirit of the agreement. That is the remedy that should be sought if there is indeed bad faith by the EU.

I expect the negotiations to be tough—that is the whole point of them. I hope that our negotiators are being tough—that is what they are there for. That is a very far distant cry from bad faith. No evidence of that has so far been shown to any of the committees which examined these issues; indeed, apart from the most recent observation by the Minister before us today, there is no evidence. Therefore, we are dealing with a hypothetical situation, which is: “We may need these powers at some stage.” Maybe we will; I hope not. If we do, it is perfectly open to the Government to come back to us, to Parliament, to put before us emergency legislation and for both Houses to sit as long and as late as necessary to examine the proposals, and, if they are satisfactory, to endorse them.

I shall not go through the arguments that were deployed before your Lordships’ House yesterday. I add merely that you do not have to be a lawyer to understand the rule of law, and you certainly do not have to be a lawyer to understand when you are giving powers away. That is what the Bill will do. You do not have to be a lawyer to understand the reputational damage to the United Kingdom. That is what this situation will do. We cannot resile from the fact that we are breaking the law if the Bill is enacted. That is what the Government say. That is why, while I quite understand the Minister’s anxiety about the future and I share his concern about it, I will seek the views of this House.

Just before I finish, I thank the Minister for his courtesy and good wishes.

I seek the opinion of the House.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Judge Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Judge]

“As an amendment to the motion that the bill be now read a second time, at end to insert “but that this House regrets that Part 5 of the bill contains provisions which, if enacted, would undermine the rule of law and damage the reputation of the United Kingdom.”

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I beg to move the amendment in my name on the Order Paper. If I believed in compulsion, and executive compulsion in particular, I would make an order that every member of the Cabinet should read the report from the Constitution Committee and the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and understand what they mean. What I read in those reports we have read time and time again, and, so far, nobody has paid much attention to them. I can sit down now, can I not? Perhaps not.

I do not want to grandstand, but the rule of law is a bulwark against authoritarian incursion, and even the smallest incursion threatens it. When those responsible for making the law—that is, us the Parliament, we the lawmakers, who expect people to obey the laws we make—knowingly grant power to the Executive to break the law, that incursion is not small. The rule of law is not merely undermined, it is subverted. There is one consequence, and the damage is to our standing in the world. We have no real power now, except soft power—the English language and an understanding that we in this country have a traditional belief in the rule of law and we respect it. We hope that, one day, all the countries in the world that do not have respect for the rule of law will have it. Yet here we are, about to tear it into tatters. Our contribution to happier days around the world will be diminished.

I want to make it clear that I passionately believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. I extol it, I discuss it abroad, I explain its advantages over a written constitution, which includes the flexibility that we now have. I also accept that Parliament can make any law it likes; it can criminalise anything it wants to. Let me give you a silly example, which is not that far removed from what has been going on through Covid. I happen to support Leicester City FC. Parliament could make it an offence to be a supporter of Leicester City FC. They could make it an offence for 10 Leicester City FC supporters to gather together to support the club. It obviously will not do that, but in theory it can do exactly what it likes.

The rule of law requires properly enacted laws. I accept that; rule by properly enacted laws is one of the ingredients, but it is not definitive. When the sovereignty of Parliament is tossed against us—fair enough, it is important, it is crucial, it is our constitution—let us remember that every country in the world has a law-making body. Think of one that has not. It will produce the laws by which that country is ruled. Of course, it will. But some constitutionally, properly enacted laws are the antithesis of the rule of law. There are so many examples, but here is one that leaps to mind. Apartheid South Africa, where everything about you as a human being and the way you were treated by the law depended on the accident of birth: the colour of your skin. Depending on the colour of your skin, your rights were more or less; they were certainly different. We tend to forget—we should not—that apartheid South Africa’s abhorrent laws were the result of a perfectly clearly understood constitutional enactment. In law, they were utterly justified in making any law they liked, just as we are. But somebody tell me that apartheid South Africa, with its properly enacted laws, was a place where the rule of law could be found. It was miles away, the furthest constellation in the stars you can imagine.

We need to be careful to distinguish between the rule of law and rule by laws. It is the rule of law that carries us and gives us the protection that we need from the abuse or misuse of the constitutional power that is enjoyed by Parliament. It is our safest shield against authoritarianism. It is a phrase that was conjured up by the Commons for the first time in 1610 to tell an overweening king that he was seeking to exercise overmuch power. It is a phrase we should use to remind an overweening Executive that they are going too far.

I know that I am not alone in finding it offensive that we are asked by a Minister in Parliament to seek Parliament’s authorisation to allow him to break the law deliberately and knowingly. Saying that it will be done only in a very specific and limited way is a total obfuscation. A thief who steals only a tin of tuna is still a thief. Over the years, Parliament has heard many strange words, it has heard some very surprising words, it has heard some inspirational words. It is part of the history of our country. But I have not yet found an occasion—I have tried, and if the Minister can find one no doubt he will tell me—when Parliament was invited to agree that a Minister should be entitled to break the law.

We must look on the impact of Part 5 as a totality. It is not just Clause 47 that is pernicious. Let us go back. We became party to a new agreement with the EU, which provided sensible get-out clauses for both sides and which either side could use, and re-enacted the withdrawal Act this year, just before Covid hit us. The Northern Ireland protocol was integral to it, with its own get-out clauses. I recognise, if I may say so, the distaste and hostility with which some people in Northern Ireland regard what happened then. I suggest to them that this debate is not about the protocol; it is about the rule of law.

The Act gave legal effect to the withdrawal agreement and the protocol, and thus it became domestic legislation implementing an international agreement. Of course I accept that international agreements and treaties occupy a separate star in the firmament, but breaking international law is not different, in principle, from breaking domestic law. The rule of law is no less an ingredient of the legal relationship between nations as it is domestically. Let us get ourselves rid of the myth, the spin, that when the rule of law internationally is damaged, the rule of law domestically is nevertheless quite unscathed. It is absurd. The rule of law is indivisible. And let us disabuse ourselves of a further myth or spin that actions already taken have not diminished virtually to extinction the assertion by the Minister in the other place that we are a beacon around the world for the rule of law and international law. The light given by that beacon is being extinguished.

Finally, we must not be beguiled by the recent argument that the legislation would be used only if necessary, in an emergency. It does not cure the fault, does it? What is not a myth is that not a shred of evidence has been produced that would justify the use of the get-out clauses; hence this proposed legislation. Part 5 provides that a Minister of the Crown shall be vested with the power to use secondary legislation in effect to repeal an Act of Parliament that Parliament has only just enacted, almost before the ink on it is dry. That is not how the sovereign Parliament should be treated by the Executive. We do not have executive sovereignty.

But this is worse than the standard Henry VIII clause. To talk about a standard Henry VIII clause is itself a shameful thing to have to do, but we are faced with them in every piece of legislation, like blossom in spring when the wind blows. And, despite the recent arguments by the Lord Chancellor, Part 5 as a whole was obviously intended to prevent any legal challenge to ministerial decree—and the Lord Chancellor himself accepts that such rights will be reduced.

This is not an attempt to limit the court’s jurisdiction over primary legislation: it is now being extended to secondary legislation. The House has heard me speak before on the subject of the inadequacy of parliamentary control of secondary legislation but, if Parliament will not exercise control, and the courts cannot do it, where then are the controls on the Executive? They are vanishing into the air. So now we are being asked to give a Minister of the Crown, on behalf of the Executive, the lawful authority knowingly and deliberately to repeal recent domestic legislation and to break international treaties, all through secondary legislation over which parliamentary control has crumbled through disuse and the normal scrutiny of which by the courts has been reduced to a whimper.

I am nearly done. The rule of law has served us well. It has not made a perfect society—nor could it. But we all know that without it our society would have been, and would still be, catastrophically worse. We must defend that bulwark, and I hope that I shall be supported, because I intend to take this issue to a Division, so that the House can give its own opinion on this dangerous legislation. I say, “Not in my name.”