Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords & Ping Pong (Minutes of Proceedings): House of Lords
Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD) [V]]

I am grateful to the Minister for his careful explanation, and for dwelling on some of the constitutional aspects of the matter, but I am still moving Motion 22A, in my name, that this House disagrees with Commons Amendment 22, introducing, as it does, a power for Ministers to apply sections of the Fisheries Bill to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man without their consent.

It came as an unpleasant surprise when the new clause appeared at such a late stage in the Bill’s progress. As the Minister indicated, my interest in such matters dates from work I did on the 2010 and 2014 Justice Committee reports on the Crown dependencies, which analysed, assessed and promoted the modern relationship between the UK and the dependencies. In every relevant respect, that 2010 report was accepted by the Government of the day.

The report set out a relationship that respected the legislative autonomy of the dependencies, which would not normally be the subject of Westminster legislation unless they wished to be. Along with that went a policy of increasing entrustment, enabling the dependencies to develop their relations with the wider world, including, in the case of the Channel Islands, their very close neighbours in France.

The UK, of which the Crown dependencies are not, and never have been, a part, remains responsible for international treaty obligations of the dependencies. The framework agreements were put in to ensure that this could be done effectively, while respecting their autonomy. I shall quote from the Guernsey agreement of 2006, but the other dependencies have similar agreements. Paragraph 13 of that agreement says:

“Guernsey has an international identity which is different from that of the UK.”


The agreement continues:

“The UK recognises that Guernsey is a long-standing, small democracy and supports the principle of Guernsey further developing its international identity … The UK has a role to play in assisting the development of Guernsey’s international identity. The role is one of support not interference … Guernsey and the UK commit themselves to open, effective and meaningful dialogue with each other on any issue that may come to affect the constitutional relationship … International identity is developed effectively through meeting international standards and obligations which are important components of Guernsey’s international identity … The UK will clearly identify its priorities for delivery of its international obligations and agreements so that these are understood, and can be taken into account by Guernsey developing its own position.”


A key question for the Minister is: do the present UK Government stand by that agreement? The clause suggests otherwise. It represents a threat to impose Westminster legislation when there are adequate means available to resolve differences when they arise. The best way is bilateral discussion, in which the UK is clearly in a strong position, given its size and resources. In any case, the islands themselves have a strong commitment to maintain their British identity, and their international reputation for good government and good faith.

Alongside all that is the requirement that island legislation requires Royal Assent, and therefore is considered at Privy Council level in the UK. That is a mechanism by which the UK seeks to make sure that international obligations are satisfied. The processes have worked, and they have resolved issues. I am not aware of any significant outstanding issues that the process has not coped with.

However, the clause says, “We’re not sure we can trust you, and if we think it’s necessary we will, without your consent, legislate from Westminster to override your legislative jurisdiction.” The Government may say—indeed, they have said, and they are saying it again today—that this is extremely unlikely, but the possibility has already been noticed by the French media, and that could undermine the Bailiwick of Guernsey, or Jersey, in their discussions with their close neighbours.

The Minister quoted the Constitution Committee. Its report, which is critical of the clause, states:

“We are not persuaded of the necessity of Commons amendment 22.”


The Minister’s letter said that the Government

“do not currently have any specific concerns which we would envisage using”,

the clause to address. The committee then stated in response that the Government,

“should seek powers only when they are necessary and their use is anticipated.”

The Minister also quoted that. The Committee in paragraph 9 states that the Commons amendment,

“undermines the domestic autonomy of the Crown Dependencies and is contrary to long-standing practice.”

We are left with a clause that the Government say they have no plans to use but hold as a threat. That reverses the trend towards greater recognition of the dependencies’ autonomy and entrustment in their international relations.

My final questions are these: is there intended to be a change of constitutional policy towards the Crown dependencies such that a power to extend Westminster legislation without consent will become a feature in more UK legislation and, if so, why are the Government not more interested in a wider discussion of such a fundamental change in policy and the constitutional relationship? Or have they stumbled into an unnecessary row because someone somewhere in Defra, who has always wanted the department to have that power, got it out of the drawer and into this legislation? I have a strong suspicion the latter might be the reason.

I note the Government’s proposal for a mechanism for discussions in the context of marine management with the dependencies. Welcome though they might be, they do not make any difference to the fundamental constitutional issue. The Government surely have enough problems to tackle without picking an unnecessary quarrel with our loyal friends in the Channel Islands. I know that the Minister who is responding today, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, is not one for picking quarrels. He should see what he can do to bring this quarrel to an end.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the noble Baroness, Lady Couttie, and the noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Pannick. I will call them in order.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

As a serving member of the Courts of Appeal of Guernsey and of Jersey, I do not normally speak on Channel Islands matters, at least if there is any possibility that it might disqualify me from sitting on some future appeal. This permissive extent clause, most unusually not consented to by either Guernsey or Jersey, merits a departure from that general rule.

There is no need to speculate as to why the Government insist so strongly at this time on a power to implement international fisheries agreements in the Channel Islands. The Minister has, after all, told the Constitution Committee that,

“we do not currently have any specific concerns which we would envisage using the PEC to address.”

I accept that formulation, while noting the care with which it is drafted. I shall, however, speak as someone with a little understanding of the legal systems of the Channel Islands on the constitutional consequences that are feared in the islands were this clause, said by the Minister to support the Crown dependencies, to be activated.

There was no hint in what we heard from the Minister that Orders in Council issued under the clause would be anything other than automatically binding in the Channel Islands. The point I want to get across is that under the laws of Jersey and Guernsey, it is at least doubtful that such a clause would even allow the United Kingdom Government to legislate in future for the bailiwicks without their consent. The States of Jersey Law 2005, like the Code of 1771 that preceded it, assumes that the UK Parliament may legislate for Jersey but places an important fetter on that power. Discussed by the Royal Court in the terrorist asset-freezing case of 2011, Section 31 of that law appears to signify that any Order in Council to extend the provisions of the Fisheries Bill to Jersey would need to be approved by Jersey’s legislature, the States Assembly, before it could be registered.

The States of Deliberation has a similar function in Guernsey under Article 72A of the Reform (Guernsey) Law 1948, as amended. Does the Minister accept that an Order in Council providing for the implementation of international obligations in the Channel Islands could take effect there only with the consent of the States Assembly and the States of Deliberation? If he cannot agree—I suspect that his instructions may be that he cannot—we enter into dangerous and heavily disputed waters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and other speeches which have been highly critical—justifiably so—of Commons Amendment 22. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I am a member of the Constitution Committee. As noble Lords have heard, we reported on 9 November that Amendment 22 raises issues of constitutional importance. It is the long-standing practice of Parliament that it does not legislate for the Crown dependencies without their consent. As your Lordships have heard, Amendment 22 has caused considerable concern in the Channel Islands, and understandably so.

It is particularly regrettable that the Government introduced the permissive extent clause at so late a stage of the passage of this Bill through Parliament. The amendment was tabled on 9 October, four days prior to Report and Third Reading stages in the House of Commons. The Bill had its First Reading in this House as long ago as 29 January. The 11th-hour tabling of the new provision has deprived this House of any opportunity to debate this amendment prior to today. It gave the House of Commons very little opportunity to consider the amendment. On a matter of constitutional importance, that is inexcusable.

It is particularly inexcusable when the hybrid procedures of this House prevent noble Lords, with very limited exceptions, participating remotely at this stage of a Bill. It means that those noble Lords who are unable to travel here to protect their health are simply deprived of a voice. On 12 October, when the Senior Deputy Speaker introduced the report explaining the hybrid procedure for Lords consideration of Commons Amendments, the noble Lord said by way of justification for limiting remote participation at this stage:

“By the time a Bill reaches these late stages, the issues have already been well debated”.—[Official Report, 12/10/20; col. 880.]


On this important provision, they have not been. That is another reason it is simply inexcusable for the Government to introduce a matter of constitutional importance so late in the Bill. I suggest that the Procedure Committee reconsider the hybrid procedure on ping-pong—the procedure that prevents remote participation apart from for a person moving a Motion—when, as in this case, a provision has not been previously considered by the House.

That would all be bad enough, but the introduction of a provision of constitutional importance so late in the passage of the Bill is especially objectionable when the Government do not even suggest that there is any urgent need to act on the powers they now wish the House to confer on them. On the contrary, the Minister was clear this afternoon, and in correspondence, that it was “highly unlikely” that these powers would ever be exercised.

The Minister was equally candid in his letter to the esteemed chair of the Constitution Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. He said—it has already been quoted but it is so extraordinary that it bears repetition:

“To be clear, we do not currently have any specific concerns which we would envisage using the PEC to address.”


Moreover, in that same letter, the Minister assured the committee he accepted that

“the Crown Dependencies take their international obligations extremely seriously; and I am confident that they would meet any required commitments, legislating domestically if required, in any normal circumstances.”

The position is clear. Even the Government do not suggest that there is any current or anticipated need for this extraordinary provision. They would simply like to have the powers in case something unexpected were to turn up.

When the provision was debated in the House of Commons, Sir Robert Neill, chairman of the Justice Committee, accurately described it as a

“‘break glass in emergency’ clause”,

and simply not good enough to justify what he described as

“trespassing on the constitutional integrity of the Crown dependencies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/20; col. 308.]

I agree, except that I would say “trampling all over”, rather than “trespassing on”. We should not break constitutional conventions because there is a remote possibility of a need to exercise powers in the future. Far less should we be doing so by way of a provision introduced so late in the passage of a Bill that it has not received the detailed consideration which it deserves.

Commons Amendment 22 is indefensible, except on the basis that any legislation for Jersey and Guernsey without the consent of the Channel Islands would have no legal effect there, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I look forward to being briefed to argue the point before Mr Justice Anderson in the courts of appeal in Jersey and Guernsey, but for the obvious conflicts of interests that we would both have.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

Does any other noble Lord in the Chamber wish to speak? No. In which case, I turn to those listed for the debate and call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Motion 22A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Beith, which would leave out Clause 52, deals with the PEC, or permissive extent clause, which affects the Crown dependencies in unusual circumstances and protects the UK against any part of it breaking international law, which would affect the whole of the UK. Other noble Lords have spoken very eloquently about this. My noble friend Lord Beith has set out extremely well the case for deleting Clause 52, and we have also heard from other noble Lords on this subject. It would seem extremely high-handed of the Government to introduce the PEC against the wishes of the Crown dependencies of Guernsey and Jersey.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has spoken from his personal knowledge of the law of the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, and other Peers have also spoken knowledgeably to Motion 22A. The Bailiwick of Jersey has written to Peers stating that the use of the PEC in relation to the Crown dependencies is extremely rare and fundamentally based on the established principle of prior consent. In this instance, both Jersey and Guernsey have consistently made it plain to the UK Government the islands’ position that the PEC is an unnecessary, unwanted and disproportionate measure.

The Bailiwick of Jersey does not consider that the UK Government have yet put forward a credible argument as to why the PEC is necessary in Jersey’s case, and I very much agree. Jersey already possesses the ability, under the Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law 1994, to give effect to any legal obligations related to fisheries management within its waters. The UK Government have not been able to provide any previous precedent or reasonable scenarios in which Jersey’s current regime could be considered insufficient.

In their letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, on 2 November, the Government state that they have been trying to reach an agreement over the last 10 months. Not to have reached an agreement over this period is no excuse to impose the PEC on reluctant Crown dependencies.

The Channel Islands All-Party Group has also written expressing considerable concerns about this matter. My noble friend Lord Chidgey, who cannot be present this afternoon to make his own contribution, is similarly concerned about the legal implications of the UK imposing the PEC on Guernsey and Jersey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this new clause, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for raising his concerns, with which we have considerable sympathy. As ever, it is unfortunate that this issue has come before us at such a late stage. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised some very important procedural issues around the consequences which arise from that, and the lack of scrutiny that we can therefore give to the proposals.

We have all read the exchange of correspondence with the Constitution Committee, and the Minister will know that its latest report says that it is

“not persuaded of the necessity”

of the government amendment on the permissive extent clause, and that what is being proposed is “contrary to long-standing practice”, in which differences of view are

“dealt with in bilateral discussion rather than by … imposition … from Westminster.”

Clearly, the Constitution Committee speaks with great authority. We should take its advice seriously. It is a great shame that events have come to this, particularly since the circumstances in which the permissive extent clause would be used seem so obscure and unlikely. It feels as though the lawyers in Defra have got carried away anticipating events that are never going to happen, a point made by a number of noble Lords.

When we spoke to the Secretary of State and the Minister, Victoria Prentis, earlier this week, we were told that further discussions with the Channel Islands would take place this week, and that it was hoped that the outstanding issues would be resolved. We were optimistic. However, having spoken to Guernsey’s Minister of External Relations yesterday, and heard the voices from around the Chamber today, I gather that, despite further discussions, concerns remain. The Minister also told me that this was damaging relations with their French neighbours and playing badly in the French media, a point confirmed in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beith. I agree with the quote from my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, that this is an issue about trust, and that it is a great shame that the strong relationship and trust that have existed in the past are now being undermined.

I am sorry that we are debating this issue and that it remains unresolved. There must be further bilateral discussions to resolve the matter. At a minimum, I hope that the Minister will commit to continuing discussions with the Crown dependencies on this issue, not only in a committee, but on a more urgent basis. These matters surely must be resolved now, well in advance of any conflict, rather than potentially in the middle of any crisis which might provoke the use of a PEC.

Secondly, I hope the Minister can be explicit about the very narrow circumstances in which he envisages these powers being used, because that is a mystery to many of us. I think all noble Lords would like to understand the type of event that would provoke the imposition of a PEC.

Lastly, I hope the Minister can acknowledge the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and others. The legal position is that, where an international instrument is to be applied to a Crown dependency, it will need to be enacted by the dependency’s own legislature rather than being imposed on it. If that is the case, then it needs the legislature’s consent in the first place, which rather negates the existence of a PEC.

I hope the Minister is hearing the voices from around the Chamber on all this. It is a great pity that we are ending our consideration of the Bill on such a note of discord. I hope he can come forward with a way through. As this is my last appearance on the Bill, I add my considerable thanks to the Minister and the noble Baroness for their considerable patience and courtesy throughout this process; they went much further than many in making sure that we were properly briefed and had access to the best possible advice. On that note, which I am sorry we have ended on, I hope the Minister is able to come back with something constructive. I look forward to his response.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I call on the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, to reply to this important debate.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, this is an extremely important debate. I am grateful for this challenge; it is rather like playing tennis with someone much better than oneself, and one hopes that that raises one’s game. When lawyers are about, I get a shade nervous. I am also nervous as I am second to none in my regard and indeed affection for the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I am reminded here of the reference to Winston Churchill and the reference to two of the Crown dependencies and their history with the Crown.

Not only for me personally but for the Government, the essential nature of working with the three Crown dependencies is the warmth and positivity of that relationship as we are all part of the British family. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, that I am grateful to him for his opening remarks, because we stand by the framework agreements, recognising the Channel Islands’ international identities. That is different from the UK ensuring that we can meet our international obligations. This is an area where I, not being the Fisheries Minister but having to attend to this matter, have tried to get my head around how this clause comes into our international obligations and why I am going to endeavour to persuade your Lordships that this is solely about how it relates to the UK’s international obligations. Indeed, that is why it is in Clause 36; it is defined because it is about all of us adhering to obligations that, as I said in my opening remarks, play out for everyone in the British family. There is therefore that last resort, that safety valve, of having provisions that enable adherence to international obligations that would have adverse impacts.

To the remarks of my noble friend Lady Couttie, I say that our preference, indeed our expectation, is that the Crown dependencies will implement the necessary legislation to meet international requirements that apply to them. As I have said, the clause provides protection for the British family on the international stage, but obviously we hope we will not have to use it.

I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. My view is that, when I take out an insurance policy, I am dearly hoping that my house does not burn down but I have a backstop. I have given very lay consideration to the issue of responsibility in this new adventure as an independent marine state, given the international obligations that we as the British Government will have. I think it is rather important, when I am seeking to persuade, to say that I personally see merit in this, but we do not in any sense want to have difficulties with the Crown dependencies.

I hope noble Lords will appreciate the requirement for the UK Government to be able to ensure that they meet international obligations for the protection of all parts of the UK—and indeed the Crown dependencies, which is the crux of the matter. That is a responsible international-facing Government ensuring that we can continue to meet our international obligations on sustainable fishing. We will of course continue to work very closely with the Crown dependencies at all levels but of course particularly at official and ministerial level.

I say to a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Couttie and Lord Northbrook, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that, having worked with my honourable friend Victoria Prentis, the Fisheries Minister, I am sure she is determined to ensure that, in the setting up of a committee with the Crown dependencies—as I have said, within the possible structure of the fisheries management agreements—to consider and assess how the implementation of the international obligations is going to be worked through. That is what we will want to do.

I agree with the sentiments that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has expressed about the importance of dialogue and continuing discussion. There is continuing work to be done on this matter with this Bill and with the responsibilities that the Government now have as an independent maritime state. I want to put on the record and re-emphasise that, through the committee or through other work, it is vital that the communications and collaborative working with the Crown dependencies are designed to ensure that we may not ever need to use this last-resort measure. That is the whole purpose of dialogue and good friendship in protecting, as I have said, the British family. I say publicly that I understand the sentiments that the noble Baroness has expressed.

I shall repeat this so it is on the record: the committee could deal with issues that may lead to the activation of the permissive extent clause. It is not intended that this clause and the regulation-making power that it relates to would be used to legislate for the Crown dependencies without their consent, unless it were to become necessary to implement an international obligation that applied to them. I emphasise again that that would only ever be as a last resort, after full consultation and the exhaustion of all other options.

I shall answer some of the questions that were asked. I looked at the Ministry of Justice guidance on this matter. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Pannick, that the MoJ advises that although consultation and consent should be sought in all circumstances, PECs can be included in Bills without the prior agreement of the Crown dependencies in exceptional circumstances and where a Bill engages the UK’s constitutional responsibilities for defence and international relations. This position is reflected in the Fact Sheet on the UK’s Relationship with the Crown Dependencies that was published by the MoJ in February this year. I will look at what both noble Lords, with their legal advantage over me, have said. I have referred to the MoJ guidance and that is the best that I can do on the matter, but it is available for further consideration.

I would also say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—and to all noble Lords—that working with Crown dependency officials and Ministers will clearly be very essential. We raised the idea of this clause before the Bill was introduced in January, then discussions took place at official level aiming to narrow the scope of the clause to what is required to protect the British family and other Crown dependencies. We consulted on them formally later this year. As I say, this is why the discussions for this Bill are specifically about Clause 36 and our international obligations. I should also say to the noble Lord that this clause does not legislate for the Crown dependencies before activating the PEC. We would consult and seek to achieve the same results through other options—for instance, of course, Crown dependency domestic legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

I am very mindful and, because I am chastened, I will obviously take back to my ministerial colleagues all the points that have been made. However, I respectfully beg to move because I think that the UK Government must have a mechanism of last resort.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, I have received a request to ask a short question from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I express my appreciation to the Minister for the considerate and thoughtful way in which he responded to the debate. I would just like clarification on that very last point. He has drawn attention, quite rightly, to the constitutional history between the United Kingdom Government and the Channel Islands. Does he not accept that the way in which harmony can be restored is by just saying “yes” to this question: if the Channel Islands do not consent to the use of the PEC, will the Government not insist on it?