Industrial Action

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that Clause 3 of this Bill is the most extraordinarily wide Henry VIII clause, which will allow Ministers, by regulations, to amend or repeal not just legislation already passed but any legislation to be enacted later in this Session. Is that not the clearest possible sign, together with the framework nature of the Bill, that the Government have not yet worked out how their policy will be implemented in practice?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

That is not the case at all. We have outlined the services that minimum service levels will be applied to, but it is right to consult widely on how the appropriate regulations will work in practice. As I have said, if voluntary MSLs are in place—as they are in some sectors at the moment—and we do not need to regulate those sectors, that is a preferable way to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I said in my short remarks, the overall minimum service level will be determined in regulations approved by Parliament, and the noble Lord is right that the implementation of that—in other words, how many workers will need to turn up to deliver that service level, plus, presumably, a few for reserve, et cetera, for those who might be sick on the day—will need to be set by individual employers on the ground in response to the different circumstances that will apply. The ultimate sanction is the same as for anybody who does not turn up to work now: they are in breach of their contracts and they will lose their right to unfair dismissal protection.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister makes the point that the regulations are crucial to the operation of this statutory scheme. Will he undertake that, when the House comes to debate the Bill at Second Reading and in Committee, draft regulations will be made available?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We will do our best to deliver the regulations in the first three sectors that we said we will legislate in, so that noble Lords will have a full opportunity to study them as we are debating the legislation.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I think that is a story for the noble Baroness’s memoirs, and I look forward to reading it.

There are lots of good amendments in this group but I want to speak to Amendments 56, 57, 61 and 62 about the implementation period. For me, the six-month implementation period makes absolutely no sense. We are trying to rush this through—we here are going to sit until I do not know what time tonight or tomorrow morning to make this emergency legislation happen, but we are still giving people six months to do this. The Government are taking so long that activists are going into oligarchs’ mansions and seizing them in London and Paris to house refugees, if we ever get any refugees here. I cannot blame this Government for the Paris seizure, but it suggests that people are getting very tired of the fact that they are being so slow about this. Why would anyone need six months? If they have been honest about paying their taxes, declaring profits and detailing the origin of their money, why do they need six months? Surely, any decent accountant—I am sure that there are several in your Lordships’ House—could sort this out within 14 days or, at the worst, 28 days. I think there is no reason for the Government not to support one of these two pairs of amendments that shorten the implementation period.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak about Amendment 92 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which would introduce a new clause headed:

“Asset freezing in respect of individuals considered for sanctions”.


Before I address that amendment, I need to give a fuller description of my interests—or, more accurately, my non-interests—than I would normally give. The reason for that is because in the House of Commons last week during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, Mr Matt Hancock complained that the 2018 Act contained amendments that

“came from those who are acting for oligarchs and then legislating for loopholes.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/22; col. 31.]

The Home Secretary responded that she “wholeheartedly” agreed with Mr Hancock.

The position is this: with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who I see is in his place, I tabled amendments to what became the 2018 Act. They were designed to ensure a fair procedure and compliance with the rule of law. On Report, on 15 January 2018, the Government brought forward at column 442 amendments of their own on these subjects which were supported by me and, much more importantly, by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches. The House of Commons was content with the provisions approved by your Lordships’ House.

It is correct that in 2017 and 2018 I did not mention that I have advised and represented one client on sanctions matters in the last 10 years. I mention it today for the avoidance of any doubt. It was President Putin’s close associate Arkady Rotenberg. I represented him in 2014 and 2015 in the Court of Appeal on a sanctions issue in family law proceedings. I also advised him in relation to his claim in the General Court of the EU in mid-2015 challenging the sanctions against him, although I did not represent him at the hearing of his case in Luxembourg in 2016.

Of course, I did not put forward amendments to the sanctions Bill in late 2017 and early 2018 to legislate for loopholes. I put forward amendments with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as I have done on so many other Bills, because I am concerned about the width of ministerial powers and the need for fair procedures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I am glad that he had the opportunity to say what he had to say; I was surprised that he did not speak on Second Reading, for that very reason, so I am glad he has now had a chance—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I had an unavoidable other professional commitment, and the Second Reading took place at very short notice.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

It did indeed, and I am glad that the noble Lord has had the opportunity to speak.

Once again, we have a huge number of varied amendments lumped into the same group, which I think is a side-effect of the process we are travelling through. I am going to focus on two themes. I am not going to interpose myself between lawyers on the subject of Amendment 92, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lady Kramer.

I will turn to Amendments 56, 61, 80 and 83 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and signed by myself. I will be brief because I do not think we have to speak for very long on this. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has been eloquent in this vein already in the unfortunate absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman.

During Second Reading we heard a chorus of disapproval on the six-month transition period, and there is a good reason for that. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was clear on those reasons, as were other speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. We have to focus on what the Government are seeking to achieve and how they are going to achieve it. While that number is very important, the second number, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, may be even more important, and it is the one covered by Amendment 97 in my name. It seeks to bring commencement forward to the First Reading of this Bill in the Commons. When I tabled that amendment, I was thinking of the National Security and Investment Act, which did just that.

In one of the meetings that the Minister kindly invited me to, he set out a number of reasons why that commencement date is, in Government’s view, not popular. The longer the Minister’s explanations were, the more alarmed I became, because it is clear now that the commencement date is subject to the pace of the slowest moving IT project. That is a matter of great concern, and certainly should be to your Lordships’ House.

In looking at the six-month transition period, we cannot isolate it from the commencement period, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, wisely stated. What the Minister has to think about and convince your Lordships of is how these two times work together. Can they be concurrent? Indeed, can commencement start without the whole system being in place? In other words, can there be some flexibility in how parts of the Bill come in? That would be controlled through statutory instruments, which the Government have control over.

Commencement is one thing, statutory instruments are another and the transition period is a third. They all add up to either a long time or a medium amount of time. The Minister needs to explain the formula the Government have in mind, because at the moment it seems to be a blank number. We do not really know when the terms of this Bill will be in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on this issue, because I am very much of the opinion, as are many in the Committee, that a combination of both a public register—so that civil society groups, journalists, activists and people in different countries will have access to different kinds of information—and vigorous verification is the kind of safeguard we need if we are to end the history of the London laundromat and prevent London remaining a magnet for a great deal of dirty money that is floating around the globe.

Like many people, when I heard that there would be a register of beneficial owners of property that would have a verification component and that verification would be introduced at Companies House, I was elated. Then I actually read the language in the Bill and it seemed, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, so light touch that there might be something vigorous, but on an exceptional basis and not as a matter of routine. As there is little in the Bill to strengthen the responsibilities of the enablers, I am worried that we will end up with the worst of all worlds—a headline that makes it looks as though we are taking significant and serious action, but implementation that completely misses the mark.

I know the Minister has sometimes said that we have plenty of legislation to deal with enablers, and which has been strengthened somewhat, but if we had adequate legislation to deal with enablers we would not have a single instance of money laundering in this country, because nobody bringing in dirty money is able to buy a single piece of property, take control of a company or engage in any other activities without using an enabler. You need the lawyers, accountants and property developers. We clearly cannot choke off that particular avenue to sustain the London laundromat. All these things come together. I hope the Minister will look again at verification. It will partly be a matter of resources—those absolutely matter—but it also has to be standard practice that a very high level of verification is embedded to deal with every item in the register.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I share the concerns expressed about the need for rigorous verification. I note that Clause 16 confers a broad power on the Secretary of State to make regulations in this field. Is the Minister able to assure the Committee that those regulations will impose a rigorous form of verification and requirements along the lines of those that have been proposed?

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Before the Minister tries to answer that, we need to recognise delivering what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, wants would be absolutely transformative to Companies House. There is no tinkering at the edges here; this would be a massive transformational change and, unless we get that, this amendment will not deliver what is being asked of it.

Economic Crime: Planned Government Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. As he was straying on to the issue of party-political donations, I noticed groans from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I think that is evidence that they can dish it out but are not so keen on taking it.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government’s inability to recover the billions of pounds obtained by fraudsters from Covid business plans, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, in his resignation speech last week, demonstrates the vital need for urgent legislative reform?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The issues are not necessarily related. We are continuing to pursue many of the frauds that the noble Lord referred to. I can give the House some examples. The Insolvency Service has already achieved 86 director disqualifications, 39 bankruptcy restrictions have been imposed, and 13 live companies have been wound up in the public interest. It has also identified 947 further director disqualification and 46 criminal cases for investigation, all of which contain an element of bounce-back loans scheme abuses. That scheme was put in place in response to a global pandemic at a very rapid pace, and I think all noble Lords can agree that it succeeded in saving many businesses and many hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country. However, we will not tolerate any abuses of the scheme, and we will continue to pursue people who are fraudulently benefiting from it.

Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My noble and learned friend makes some very good points. Given that some of these initial prosecutions happened, in some instances, 20 years ago, the fact is that the Post Office representation changed a number of times. It is difficult to provide a complete answer to my noble and learned friend’s questions. Postmasters were prosecuted by the in-house legal teams of the Post Office and, before that, by the Royal Mail, and they were supported by external counsel as needed. It is important to emphasise that none of these prosecutions involved any current Post Office lawyers, nor that of Peters & Peters, which is the criminal lawyers firm now supporting the Post Office to address these issues. I am unable to say what prosecutors thought at the time. However, as my noble and learned friend is of course well aware, prosecutors have a duty to disclose to the accused material that could reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the defence case.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister spoke of fair compensation. Is he aware that the statutory test for compensation for miscarriages of justice is much stricter than simply showing that the Court of Appeal has quashed a conviction as unsafe? The statutory test would impose a burden on postmasters to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the alleged offence. Can the Minister assure the House either that this onerous statutory test will not be applied to restrict compensation or that the statutory test will be treated as satisfied in all these cases? Any other approach would compound the wrong done to these postmasters.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a powerful point. Of course, the judgment is relatively recent and no decisions have been taken regarding compensation, so I cannot give him any specific commitments today. However, I repeat that we are keen to see that all postmasters whose convictions are overturned are fairly compensated as quickly as possible. I know that the issue of compensation will be of great interest to the House, and I commit to update the House on this matter whenever it is appropriate.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

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

[The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, in his very seasoned contribution for a newbie—and indeed the other 18 speakers so far in this very important debate. The European Union Committee published our report on the Internal Market Bill on 16 October, and I take this opportunity to remind noble Lords of our conclusions. Our report was short. It deals only with Part 5 of the Bill, and its interaction with the Government’s implementation of the withdrawal agreement.

The withdrawal agreement is a complex document, around a third of which is taken up by the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, itself a testament to the importance that all parties place on getting things right in that regard. I said before in this Chamber that there is an inherent tension at the heart of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol which is evident in Article 1, which describes its objectives. There are other examples, as I said in my Second Reading speech.

The only way to reconcile these tensions is for all sides to show pragmatism and willingness to compromise. Our committee reported in June on the protocol, expressing our concern that there was not enough urgency among the parties to negotiate these compromises, so protecting first the Good Friday agreement and secondly the two mighty single markets involved: those of the EU and the UK.

The report also dwelled on the multilayered dispute resolution mechanisms contained in the withdrawal agreement. The Bill before us supplants those mechanisms without their ever having been tried. As we have been reminded already several times, in September the Secretary of State made clear and repeated statements that in doing so it breaches international law. The result is that the Bill strikes at the heart of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol. It is corrosive too to the future relationship negotiations, undermining the trust that is a precondition for a successful outcome.

The Government’s argument now, as we have already heard, not least this morning on the radio, is that the Bill is a safety net: that it does not itself break international law but is a precaution in case of unreasonable behaviour by the EU. The problem with that argument, as we point out in paragraph 106 of our report, is that the Government’s decision to act pre-emptively in the absence of evidence has put the UK, and not the EU, into the wrong. Our report ended by seeking further explanation of the Government’s approach, and in particular the disclosure of any evidence that the EU had acted in bad faith. Those explanations have not been forthcoming, and I therefore hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will indicate a change of heart and give his support to the removal of Part 5 of the Bill.

In closing, I note that amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, are in keeping with the thrust of our report—albeit that we had asked the Government to cure the problems themselves. Convention, however, prevents me from expressing a view in the Division Lobby tonight.

[Lord Pannick (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, whose work as chair of the EU Committee has illuminated the issues on this Bill, as on so many other issues that we have been debating over the years.

I agree with the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. There are occasions, as this debate confirms, when clauses in a Bill raise issues of political, and indeed moral, principle of fundamental importance. This House has a responsibility to identify when that occurs.

I will make some observations on Clause 47, which has not featured in detail in this Committee debate. Clause 47 is innocuously titled “Further provision related to sections 44 and 45 etc.” Clause 47 is, however, a very substantial interference with the rule of law. Clause 47(1) says that any regulations which Ministers may make under Clauses 44 and 45

“have effect notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent.”

Clause 47(8) defines

“relevant international or domestic law”

to include

“any other legislation, convention or rule of international or domestic law whatsoever.”

So whatever Ministers produce by way of regulations cannot be challenged in a court of law on any grounds.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

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

[Lord Pannick (CB) [V]]

My Lords, what an extraordinary series of speeches so far. The Minister’s speech was itself extraordinary because he ignored the elephant in the Chamber—that is, the elephant which is trampling through Part 5 on the rule of law.

The noble and learned lord, Lord Judge, in his powerful speech, referred to the report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. I am a member of that committee. We unanimously concluded that for this Bill to set out to break international law is without precedent. We described Part 5 as “constitutionally dangerous” . We said that the Bill is

“fundamentally at odds with the rule of law.”

We reached those conclusions not just because Ministers want to give themselves this unprecedented power to breach international law—as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said in his eloquent remarks, this country is looked at by other nations as a beacon of legality and it is therefore extraordinary that Ministers should want such a power—but because Ministers are seeking to immunise the regulations that they make from challenge in the courts on any ground “whatsoever”, the word used in Clause 47(8).

The Constitution Committee is not a group of “lefty lawyers”—the Prime Minister’s term of abuse in his recent speech to the Conservative Party conference. Nobody, I think, has ever described my esteemed colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, in that way. There are some lawyers on the Constitution Committee, but most of the members are politicians and political observers from across the House with decades of political experience. The Government should be ashamed to be responsible for producing and pursuing a Bill that attracts such condemnation from such a committee of your Lordships’ House.

Like those unfortunate people who do not feel pain, and who are therefore at grave risk of injuring themselves and those around them, this Government do not feel shame. It is therefore the responsibility of this House to shout out a warning to the Government that Part 5 of the Bill will, if enacted, endanger the rule of law. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, because his amendment gives us the means by which that warning can, tomorrow, be communicated loudly and clearly.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

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

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

[Lord Pannick (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments 103 and 106, which are in my name and in the names of three other members of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee: our esteemed chairman—the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton—the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.

These amendments address aspects of the retrospective nature of provisions in the Bill. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 10 and paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 will render void a relevant winding-up order which was made by a court on or after 27 April this year but before the day on which the schedules come into force.

Justification Decision Power (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, it is complex and technical. There is no one body called the justifying authority; there are a number of different authorities. On certain occasions, it will by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business; on other occasions, if it was a matter relating to health, it could be the Secretary of State for Health. As I made clear earlier, where it was a devolved matter, it could be the devolved Administrations.

Let me give an example to illustrate how a whole range of things are covered—I am thinking of something that has been in the news recently. If prisons wanted to install a new system for examining or scanning prisoners and others as they came through—I believe that that has already been justified—that involves ionising radiation. I shall now add a further complication: one might presume that the Ministry of Justice would be the justifying authority in that matter, but on this occasion it would be the Home Office. In other words, it would have to look at what the risks to people using these things might be and whether the societal benefits that I referred to earlier were greater such that we wanted to install the technology, hence the need for a justifying authority. There are a number of justifying authorities.

Unlike some other regulations that the noble Lord and I have debated, these are both what we could call deal and no-deal regulations. We are just trying to make sure that the right order is in place so that life can continue as before, with the appropriate justifying authority making the appropriate decision.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Can I ask the Minister some questions before he sits down?

[The Deputy Speaker]

My Lords, perhaps I should put the question and then the debate can commence. The question is that this Motion be agreed to.

[Lord Pannick]

I have two questions for the Minister. When were these regulations published, and has there been any public consultation on their content?

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, I am tempted to ask a number of questions to get them out of the way, because most of these regulations follow the same guidelines. My noble kinsman the Minister has already said that they will not come into effect if we remain in the European Union for whatever reason. Can he confirm that that is the case for all the regulations, and then I will not have to ask again?

I have only one question on this regulation, which concerns transparency. The noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Pannick, have already talked about the justifying authority, and reading the SI it is clear that it could be any Secretary of State, but as we are dealing with detriment to health and ionising radiation can the Minister say at what point discussions by the justifying authority would be made public? Under what forum would people be able to find out about the decision-making process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

On that last point, I have had an assurance from my noble friend Lady Vere that a reward will be on offer—but let us wait until we have got through all four of these before I rely on the generosity of her offer: she might change her mind later.

Let me deal with the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked when these were published. I can assure him that they were published on 23 November last year. The instrument makes absolutely no changes to policy: it is just a technical amendment to ensure the continued operability of the justification regulations, and therefore a public consultation was considered unnecessary and inappropriate. Subsequent regulations made using the power contained in this instrument will continue to be subject to the consultation requirements, where the justification regulations impose on the making of justification decisions.

[Lord Pannick]

Can the Minister then give an undertaking that those exit regulations brought before the House that do make policy changes will be the subject of public consultation?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, where appropriate, that will happen. I can speak only for regulations that I will bring before this House relating to my department—but the noble Lord will no doubt be in his place to listen to other Ministers and other regulations as they come through. I repeat that, when we come to make further decisions under these regulations, at that moment—because there might be a change in policy—those decisions will be subject to the consultation process that I spoke about. If the noble Lord will bear with me, I will give way on this.

[Lord Pannick]

I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s patience. Is he then giving that undertaking in relation to regulations brought forward by his department—that if they are exit regulations that make a change of policy, they will be the subject of public consultation before they are brought before the House?

Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, as far as I can see from reading the material supporting the regulations, they do not involve any change in the operation of the law. As the Minister says, they have been approved by the devolved authorities, therefore they seem to me straightforwardly technical, but as there is no opportunity on the whole suite of regulations being moved today to raise issues about their management, I want to ask the Minister one question to which I hope he will respond when he replies.

In the original publication of the Order Paper, two further orders were due for debate today: the Conservation of Habitats and Species Order (Amendment) (EU Exit) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Order. They were both on the Order Paper published on 16 January for today, but then they disappeared from the Order Paper published today. When I was preparing for this debate, there seemed to be some controversial issues surrounding those regulations, and they raise significant issues to do with natural habitats.

When the Minister replies—by then he will have been able to be advised by the Box—can he say why those two regulations were withdrawn from debate today, having been on the Order Paper on 16 January for today, what has happened to them and when they will appear before the House? Some of us are having great difficulty tracking the progress of these highly important regulations through the House because they seem to appear on and then disappear from the Order Paper almost at random.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I have one question for the Minister. He told the House in the previous debate that these are no-deal regulations. Can he identify for the House which parts of these regulations will not be needed if the Prime Minister’s deal with the EU were to be approved by the House of Commons?

[The Earl of Selborne (Con)]

I have an observation, rather than a question, to put to my noble friend. He rightly says that these are vital measures, as they are because, in our wisdom, we are apparently to leave Euratom as well as the European Union. Of course, we were members of Euratom before we were members of the EEC. Everyone agrees that Euratom is doing an absolutely first-class job and why in the EU withdrawal legislation we had to leave Euratom remains a total mystery to me. Having made that very bad decision, we clearly have to proceed as my noble friend suggests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

Either I will write to him or the noble Lord will be aware that fairly soon—when we have finished with my regulations, whenever that will be and whether I get the sweets from the sweetie box referred to earlier—I will be followed by my noble friend Lord Gardiner from Defra, who might be in a better position to advise him on these matters. We will certainly pass that on to my noble friend. I do not think it would help if I did write to the noble Lord on that subject; I leave it to him to make that point later. He also wanted to know—I think this was at the heart of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—what the regulations will resemble in the event of a deal scenario. These new regulations have been drafted for a no-deal scenario. The old 2008 regulations would have remained in effect for the implementation period if there was a deal. In the event of a deal, the future supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel will be subject to negotiations with the EU. This may mean that the 2019 regulations never come into force, or come into force in an amended form. I do not think I can take that any further.

[Lord Pannick]

With the indulgence of the Minister, I ask whether he agrees that it would be helpful to the House if the Explanatory Memoranda to regulations of this nature were to state clearly that they were regulations brought forward specifically for no deal and to explain why the regulations, in the view of the Government, would not be appropriate at all or in this form if there were a deal. I am looking at the Explanatory Memorandum to these regulations and cannot immediately see that we are told they are no-deal regulations.

[Lord Henley]

I thought it was implicit in the regulations. I thought I made that clear in my opening remarks. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.

[Lord Pannick]

I am sorry to come back to the Minister. I am not questioning his assertion that these are no-deal regulations; I entirely accept that. I am simply saying that when we perform our scrutiny function and look at these regulations for the purposes of debate, it would be very helpful if the material—the Explanatory Memorandum—were to state for the guidance of Members of the House that they were no-deal regulations and what the position would be if there were a deal. That is all.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I have now set that out. These regulations have been to the appropriate scrutiny committees. They have not queried that part of the Explanatory Memorandum, and I do not think I can take the noble Lord any further.

Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for his introductory remarks. This regulation was debated in the Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee of the House of Commons last Tuesday, and I want to raise an issue that was raised in that debate. The good news, which gives significant resource to Parliament, is that we have the inspectors that we need to ensure the continuity of functions after 29 March, because there had been concerns when the legislation was going through the House that we might not. The Minister gave the figures in his remarks. However, my colleague, Alan Whitehead, the shadow Minister, raised an issue in the Commons that was not replied to by the relevant Minister, Richard Harrington. He said:

“The Minister said both yesterday and today that additional inspectors had indeed been appointed and that the ONR’s recruitment target for the first phase has been met … As I understand the position, we have inspectors in place to carry out inspection to an international standard, but not to the level previously set out in the regime overseen by Euratom. The explanatory memorandum for today’s SI states: ‘It is intended that these agreements … combined with these Regulations, will allow ONR to establish a new regime which will deliver international standards from day one of exit, building, over time, to be equivalent in effectiveness and coverage to that currently provided by Euratom, and which will exceed international standards’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/01/19; col. 6.]


This seems to be quite a significant issue and I would be grateful if the Minister could amplify on it in his remarks. I am not familiar with the industry, but at the moment the Government take pride—and therefore, presumably, so does the industry—in the fact that our inspection standards are above international standards.

The Minister in the House of Commons said that the continuity regime after 29 March will enable us to have inspections to the international standard but not to the existing Euratom standard. It is not clear to me, and it may not be to other noble Lords, what the difference is between an inspection to international standards and an inspection to Euratom standards. However, if it is such a good thing for our industry to have an inspection to Euratom standards, presumably that is because we believe that there is some specific public purpose to be gained in having an inspection to that higher level, and that therefore there is some loss to the industry and the wider public interest in having an inspection only to international standards.

This is not my area at all. I do not begin to understand the difference between inspection to international standards and to Euratom standards. The Government’s own impact assessment says that we wish to attain inspection to Euratom standards, but in the event of a no-deal Brexit, we will not be able to do so after 29 March. Since it has been raised in these debates, and since there clearly is a difference, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what the difference is between international standards and Euratom standards, what we will be losing by having inspections only to international standards rather than to Euratom standards, and when we will achieve inspection to this gold standard—the Euratom standard—which apparently we are losing.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, this is one of the reasons why the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham of Felling, stated in paragraph 14 of its helpful report published on 13 December 2018 that these regulations raise issues of public policy which require them to be drawn specifically to the attention of the House.

At paragraph 11, the committee explains that it asked the department why the Euratom safeguard standards—which are higher than international standards—could not be met on day one after exit. The noble Lord’s department, BEIS, told the committee that:

“ONR aims to have the required capacity and capability to deliver a regime equivalent in effectiveness and coverage to that currently delivered by Euratom by December 2020”.


I imagine that this is a very real concern to the House. Does the Minister accept that on exit day it will not be possible to maintain the standards currently enjoyed under Euratom, and that it will take until December 2020 to do so? If that is the case, does he really think it is acceptable?

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Pannick, for restating the issue that I raised under the last statutory instrument. It is of concern to both the House and the public. Could my noble friend outline for us in what way the regime that will exist from March 2019 will be deficient relative to the regime that exists, once we reach the Euratom standards in 2020? I understand that, as of March, we will not have the required number of trained inspectors. We have inspectors sufficient for the international standards—which are lower than Euratom—but in what way would the regime be different?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord is possibly getting confused with safety and security, and thinking not only about nuclear safeguards. We are talking about only three sites, two of which are in west Cumberland—I have forgotten where the third is, but I shall write to the noble Lord. We will continue to be compliant with IAEA standards. I appreciate that, as the noble Lord said, a slightly different safeguards regime—not safety or security—is set out by Euratom. That will take a little longer, which is why we will need not only further inspectors but nuclear accountants. We will be ready to meet the IAEA standards in March and will get up to the Euratom standards on safeguards a little later.

[Lord Pannick]

The Minister said that it was “only” a matter of safeguards, but does he accept that safeguards are important? Will he also accept that the inevitable consequence of what he is telling the House is that, from 29 March this year until the end of December 2020, there will a diminution in the quality of the safeguards people enjoy in this important industry? Is that acceptable?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I shall be increasingly careful about what words I use when I speak in front of distinguished lawyers such as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I will try to avoid using “only” in future. What I am saying is that we will meet our standards in relation to safeguards. My reason for wanting to emphasise safeguards as opposed to safety and security is that one does not want to start creating anxiety as to whatever might happen in terms of safety and security. This measure is nothing to do with safety and security; it is to do with nuclear safeguards, which, as the noble Lord will know probably better than me, is a highly technical term—no doubt he would be able to explain it better than me. We will meet our international obligations in March this year. That is the assurance that I give to the House. It is why, when the Nuclear Safeguards Bill went through the House, it was important to noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and others that we had the appropriate number of inspectors in place. I gave assurances then that we would have enough inspectors in place and I am grateful that we have been able to honour those commitments, for which we should praise and thank not me but the ONR.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether it was the same regime. I am trying to make it clear that our aim is to establish a regime equivalent in effectiveness and coverage—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, cited “equivalent”—to that currently provided by Euratom, but obviously they are not exactly the same. In many respects, it reflects and is based on Euratom regulation 302/2005—which, if the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would like to study it, could be his bedside reading. These domestic regulations have been drafted to reflect the fact that they will operate appropriately within a UK regulatory and operational landscape. They also take account of the United Kingdom’s obligations under its relevant international agreements.

I think that deals with the issues that were raised, with the exception of costs, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to which I now have a response. Our transitional costs were estimated at some £10 million in the final impact assessment published with the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. The safeguards regulations’ final impact assessment gives the higher figure that the noble Lord quoted: estimated transitional costs of £28 million. This difference does not reflect an actual increase in ONR’s expected costs; the two estimates are not directly comparable, since they cover different periods. The Bill’s impact assessment did not include an implementation period as part of the withdrawal agreement running to 31 December 2020 and therefore included costs only up to March 2019. The regulations’ final impact assessment includes the implementation period and therefore includes costs incurred in that period too. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that explanation and I apologise for temporarily losing the relevant bit of paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I will write to the noble Lord about the precise moment, but we are moving towards that in terms of the extra staff the ONR is seeking to recruit.

[Lord Pannick]

I am very surprised that the Minister is so reluctant to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, because the committee’s report states in terms that his department said that the higher Euratom standards will not be reached until the end of December 2020. His department’s response recognises that there will therefore be a lessening of the standards that currently apply. Why will he not just accept the obvious facts that his department has accepted in its answers to the committee?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord, too, I suspect, is trying to frighten the horses. What I am saying is that we are meeting some very high nuclear safeguards standards—nothing to do with security or safety—and we will be there in due course. We have always been clear that we will deliver on our international obligations from day one. That is what I have made clear, and we will build to Euratom standards by December 2020.