Israel and Gaza

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be fully aware that, as the Minister responsible, I called out the statements made by the two Ministers he named as inflammatory and not reflective of a majority of progressively minded and right-minded people and citizens of Israel across all communities who do not adhere to the statements made by those Ministers; we have rejected those words. The more substantive issue of IHL is important; we regularly review our assessment and we have previously assessed that Israel is complying with IHL. The noble Lord will have heard the words of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary about the importance of this and, while we will not give a running commentary, we have to go through specific processes in this regard, and I assure him that we are seized of this.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the support that he, the Foreign Secretary and the Government have given to the families of the hostages in Gaza. Will he please reconfirm that the Government are doing all they can to release these unfortunate people? Can he also make special efforts to try to secure the release of the remains of those hostages who have died in Gaza so that their families can give them a decent burial?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I can give the noble Lord both those assurances. This week my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly to hostage families. I also met, for a second time, one of the mothers of the hostage families; he is not in his place, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Levy, for arranging that. It is important, and I assure the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House that this is a key priority. That is why we need the fighting to stop now so that we can get the hostages returned and aid in. To his point on remains, I remember a very poignant meeting, together with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, at which one of the relatives looked at me quite directly and said that irrespective of our faiths—I speak as a Muslim and she was of the Jewish faith—we all recognise the importance of closure, and we need to bring closure to the families of those tragically killed.

Israel and Gaza

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister rightly included among the vital elements for a lasting peace the removal of Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel and Hamas no longer being in charge of Gaza. How are we to achieve these aims unless Israel continues its military campaign?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

The noble Lord raises an important point. He will know that the Israeli army is one of the most sophisticated. It has said that its operation has moved into a new phase in which it can focus on specific military targets and on where it sees that some of the missiles which continue to be launched on Israel are targeted. It has also made quite public declarations that it wishes to protect the civilian population. The Government feel, as the noble Lord will recognise, that Gaza is a small strip of land. There are currently 1.2 million people in Rafah. We have made the point to Israel that specific provision for the number of civilians in Rafah—particularly women and children—is an important consideration. I fear that a ground offensive without these provisions will result in a humanitarian catastrophe.

Palestinian State: UK Recognition

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 13th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. If you look across the world and ask yourself, “Where’s the biggest refugee crisis?”, it is not in Israel or in the Palestinian territories; it is either in Sudan, where about 9 million people have moved into Egypt, or you could argue that it is in Myanmar, where Bangladeshis are looking after millions of Rohingyas in very difficult conditions. It is important that we try to keep a focus on what is happening around the world and look at the numbers. That said, the reason people are focused on Gaza right now is the level of death and destruction, and people want to bring that to an end, as do I. This is why we have made this proposal for the immediate pause, moving to the ceasefire, with the five conditions we need to put in place to help to bring that about and work towards a political solution.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas was elected to power. Having been elected to power, it proceeded to terrorise and then murder its political opponents. Hamas remains very popular in Gaza and in the West Bank. How can we prevent an independent Palestinian state from being governed by Hamas, maintaining its policy of seeking to attack Israel and to murder, rape and abduct as many Israeli citizens as possible?

[Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)]

The noble Lord asks an extremely good question. We have to try to help to separate the Palestinian people from Hamas. One of the best ways of doing that, apart from making sure that, as I have said, our conditions should include the Hamas leadership leaving Gaza and the dismantling of the terrorist infrastructure, is to offer the Palestinian people—not Hamas, because it is not interested in a two-state solution—a route to better governance, with a reformed Palestinian Authority and the long-term horizon of a two-state solution to give them the dignity and security that they crave and that would help to bring about peace in the region.

Israel/Gaza

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, the Government, the Labour Front Bench, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and so many noble Lords for the sympathy and support shown to Israel during the very difficult times of the past two and a half weeks, and for the condemnation expressed for the growing anti-Semitism in this country. It is a great comfort and reassurance to the Jewish community, and very much appreciated.

I declare my interests. My wife is Israeli. We have a home in Israel; the Minister has been our guest. We know families who have been bereaved by the terrible actions of 7 October. My friends in Israel have children and grandchildren who have paused their university careers, occupations and family life to join the armed forces to defend their country. They would all much prefer to live in peace with their neighbours, but certain basic truths explain why these reasonable, decent people are supporting military action at this time.

The first is obvious, but it needs to be said. Hamas seeks the destruction of the State of Israel and all Jews living there; its charter proclaims these goals. The shocking events of 7 October demonstrate that this is not just a theory. Hamas is willing to implement its aims by the murder, torture and abduction of Jews, however young or old, religious or secular and whatever their political views. Worse, Hamas is supported by a powerful state, Iran, which has regularly announced the same aim of destroying Israel. Tragically, we know from recent European history—two decades before I was born in 1956—that, when states or groups announce that they are going to murder Jews and remove them from the face of the earth, they need to be stopped.

The second basic truth follows from the first. Because Hamas and its supporters seek the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews who stand in the way, Hamas has no interest in a political settlement. It has no wish to negotiate a two-state solution. The only solution in which Hamas is interested is what the Nazis called a final solution. It is naive in the extreme to think that it would make the slightest difference to the conduct of Hamas if only the Israeli Government were to alter their policies. I oppose many of these, as, more significantly, does a large proportion of the Israeli population. Earlier this week, President Herzog of Israel, a very wise man, said that you cannot make peace with a neighbour who wants to chop off your children’s heads.

The third basic fact is that a state that faces such threats to its existence is entitled to defend itself. No other state in the world would tolerate or be expected to tolerate such a threat at its border. International law clearly permits Israel to remove the ability of Hamas to fire missiles at its population and the threat of further incursions to torture, kill and abduct people.

The fourth basic truth is that Israel faces profound strategic as well as moral dilemmas. There are no easy answers when Hamas is embedded in a civilian population, has a network of tunnels and is holding more than 200 hostages. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to a letter in the Financial Times last week from some lawyers. In a letter in the Times last Friday, I said with my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven that it is very easy for those lawyers to pronounce on international law from the safety of their chambers in the Temple without regard to the threat that Israel faces and the problems in removing it.

A fifth and final basic truth is that Israelis know and deeply regret that the civilian population of Gaza are suffering. Tragically—and it is a tragedy—war in Gaza is causing and will cause immense suffering and death to innocent people. War always does. Israel must do and is doing all it can to minimise civilian deaths—a difficult task when Hamas embeds itself in schools, hospitals and mosques. We should be in no doubt who is responsible for this appalling situation: Hamas and all who support its perverted ideology. This includes those who shamefully celebrate on the streets of London when Israeli civilians are tortured, murdered and abducted.

In his very thoughtful opening remarks, the Minister emphasised the virtues of open debate on difficult issues. One of the tragedies of Gaza is that anyone who expresses the view that their Government should stop spending money on missiles and tunnels and focus on industry, health and education would be speedily tortured and murdered.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who highlights quite clearly the central proposition in Amendment 38, tabled in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. It is about limiting the control of Ministers under the Bill by ensuring that the Northern Ireland Assembly is given necessary approval of the conduct in relation to the provisions within the Bill.

Amendment 38 seeks to amend Clause 18, “Other Ministerial powers”, to ensure a limitation of delegated powers to Ministers—the very issue that was discussed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—and to ensure that

“the exercise of the Minister’s power to engage in conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol that is not otherwise authorised by the Act to a motion approving the conduct in the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

It throws up the accountability issues relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly—I hope that all the institutions will be up and running eventually—and would ensure that devolved regions and nations have particular control in relation to this issue.

It is worth noting that there were two important developments in the long road of the protocol. Today, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, met in the margins of the climate conference in Egypt and agreed to work together to end the turmoil in relation to the protocol. Also today, at the meeting of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in this building, Vice-President Šefčovič said that if this Bill were to become law, the UK Government would put Northern Ireland’s unique access to the EU market of 450 million customers at risk.

I again urge the Government to put this Bill into cold storage and ensure that there is renewed political vigour given to the negotiations. It is only through joint negotiations that all the issues around the protocol in relation to east-west issues and to trade between GB and Northern Ireland can be satisfactorily resolved to the benefit of all businesses and people in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, when the purpose and the intended effect of a clause are unclear, it sometimes helps to look at the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. These are produced, of course, by the Government, and are designed to explain. But if we look at the Explanatory Notes to Clause 18, we see that the confusion and uncertainty are even more manifest.

Look at paragraphs 96 to 98 of the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 96 tells us that:

“Clause 18 clarifies the relationship between powers provided by this Bill and those arising otherwise, including by virtue of the Royal Prerogative.”


That is what Clause 18(2) says. Paragraph 97 deals specifically with Clause 18(1). It says:

“Subsection (1) provides that Ministers can engage in conduct (i.e.”—


and I emphasise that it is “i.e.” and not “e.g.”—

“sub-legislative activity, such as producing guidance) relevant to the Northern Ireland Protocol if they consider it appropriate in connection with one or more of the purposes of this Bill.”

If that is the intended purpose of Clause 18(1), why not say so? Why not limit the scope of Clause 18(1) specifically to say that Ministers can produce guidance? We could then have a debate about whether it is properly drafted, whether it is too broad or whether there should be some controls. I am afraid that what we find in Clause 18(1) bears no relationship whatever to what the Explanatory Notes tell us that Clause 18(1) is designed to achieve. My conclusion from that is that there must be real doubt here; that Ministers know what Clause 18(1) is designed to achieve and are reluctant to be specific because they do not want proper controls on the scope of their powers.

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

To follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I wonder whether one route might be for the Minister to give us a glimpse behind the veil. What were the instructions given to parliamentary counsel? In other words, what were they asked to achieve by means of Clause 18(2)?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, this has been unusual in the debates that we have had so far in that far more has been said that I can agree with than that I disagree with. I even found myself agreeing with two-thirds of what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, which is unusual. He is undoubtedly right that the negotiations cannot really be going as well as we would all like to hope, and as so many commentators and Ministers imply they are, as long as the EU has not been prepared to change its negotiating mandate. It will not allow a single jot or tittle of the protocol to be changed under its existing mandate, even though the protocol itself envisages the possibility of it being changed in part or in whole. That surely has to change. Maybe it has de facto; maybe the EU is agreeing to talk beyond its mandate. Let us hope that that is the case.

The disappointing aspect of the debates so far is that I have been waiting throughout for any coherent response from noble Lords, in their very powerful speeches about the illegality of what we are doing, to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, in particular as to what happens when there is a conflict between two international obligations, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, implied that there is between the obligations that we have under the Belfast agreement and those that we have under the protocol. I have not heard any direct response to that question: what do you do when you have conflicting international legal obligations?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord but the Committee has heard repeated explanations of what the answer is. The answer is that the protocol contains Article 16, which allows for a process to commence by which disputes can be resolved with an arbitration process. That is the answer. There is no conflict because the protocol provides a mechanism for addressing conflicts.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for sidestepping the question by saying that he does not need to answer it because there is an article in the protocol that means you do not have to answer on what happens when there is a conflict between two international obligations. Clearly, however, the Government and many noble Lords from the Province who have spoken think that there is a conflict and it cannot be solved just by invoking Article 16. If it can, fine; that is wonderful.

The other related question that we have not had a response to is the point made by the Lord Chancellor in the other place that Article 1 of the protocol specifically says that in the event of a conflict between the Belfast agreement and the protocol, the Belfast agreement takes precedence. I have not heard any response to that, nor to the point, which I might be alone in making, that the whole protocol is intrinsically temporary. We know that because the EU told us that it could not enter into a permanent relationship with us because we were then a member state and it could not, under Article 50, enter into a permanent relationship with a member state; it could be only temporary and transitional. That is why the protocol itself contains provision for it to be superseded, but I have heard no response to that point from anyone.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I certainly do not say absolutely that Article 16 is not the way to proceed, but I have spoken to lawyers much respected by people in this House—unfortunately I do not have their permission to give their names—who told me that we should not go down the Article 16 route because it would be a nightmare.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Why?

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I will put the two in touch discreetly and thereby not betray confidences.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord and I am grateful for his patience, but it really is not good enough, when this Committee is debating these matters, for him to say that there are problems in using Article 16 but not tell us what they are.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am saying that there may well be problems. Indeed, I asked the noble Lord the other day, down the corridor, whether he was of the opinion that Article 16 could be used to solve all the problems. If it can be, fine; I am not ruling that out. However, if it cannot be, then the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, is there on the table, and the issue raised by the Lord Chancellor is there on the table. Whatever about that, the protocol is intrinsically temporary. The whole basis of the negotiations that we entered into on the withdrawal agreement was that a permanent agreement could not be entered into in the withdrawal Act with the United Kingdom covering trade or other matters; that could happen only after we had left. Therefore, anything in the withdrawal agreement was intrinsically transitional and temporary.

Again, I have not heard a response on that today. I wait to be interrupted with a response to the point. Usually, it comes from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who wrote Article 50, but he has forgotten what the alternative is.

These are important issues. We need to know why we were told one thing, that this was temporary, and now are told another thing, that it is permanent. Until we get an answer to those questions, I do not know that our debate can proceed as productively as it ought to. There are other more general points which I would like to make but I will save them for another batch of amendments.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on the amendments and the wider context. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and I always look down the list to see when the first group in Committee will be. We know that the clock will strike an hour because of the context that will be set in relation not just to the amendments in front of us but opinions on the particular Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I will focus on the specific amendments. Where I can add a degree of Ahmad colour, I will seek to do this in the best way possible.

As I and my colleagues have said, to pick up on a key point on the ultimate nature of the Bill, the reasoning behind the Government’s approach is that the Bill is consistent with our obligations in international law and supports our prior obligations to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, as has been said in various parts of today’s debate—and very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Lilley.

I will begin with Amendment 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on the issue of the powers. In the Government’s view, Clause 18 is not an extraordinary power. It simply makes clear, as would normally be the case, that Ministers are acting lawfully in this case. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and others and I will attempt to put some colour on this—I do not know whether it will be to noble Lords’ satisfaction. Clause 18 is included because the Government recognise that the Bill provides, in a way that is not routinely done for other legislation, for new domestic obligations to replace prior domestic obligations that stem from our international obligations. Those international obligations are currently implemented automatically by Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That conduit pipe currently constrains—and in the Government’s view could cause confusion in the future—how Ministers can act in support of the Bill. The Government put forward that Clause 18 is to provide clarity on that point.

I note the DPRRC’s view on the issue of delegated powers, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, highlighted again in his contribution. However, it is the Government’s view that the power being proposed here is within the normal scope of executive action. To provide a bit more detail, this would include, for example, direct notifications from Ministers to the EU. While I am sure—I am going to hazard a guess as I look around your Lordships’ House—that I may not have satisfied every question on that, I hope that that has provided a degree more detail.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. Can I press him for a moment on what I understand to be his explanation for Clause 18, which is that otherwise there may be some concern that the exercise of powers is not consistent with Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018? I think that is what the Minister said.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I would put it slightly differently. That is the section I referred to, but it is to provide clarification in that respect. The noble Lord will interpret that in the way that he has, but I have sought to provide clarity on why the Government’s position is that this should be included.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Could I complete my point? I am very grateful to the Minister but I am puzzled by that explanation, because the Bill already deals specifically with this subject in Clause 2(3). I remind the Minister that it states:

“In section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 … after subsection (3) insert … This section is subject to”


this Bill. Therefore, with great respect, I do not understand why one needs Clause 18 to address exactly the same point.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I suppose that, with any Bill, the challenge for the Government is often to provide added clarification. That is exactly what we are doing, perhaps to emphasise the point that the noble Lord himself has highlighted from other elements of the Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord will come back on these issues, but if I can provide further detail on the specific actions that this would thereby permit, I will. As I said, it is a point of clarification, and I will write to the noble Lord on this point.

The best way I can sum up Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is that it is a well-trodden theme in the context of the Bill. The positions and different perspectives on this issue are noted. All I add is that the Government’s intention is to ensure that the powers—the ability for a Minister of the Crown to issue guidance to industry or provide direction to officials in relation to the regime put in place under the protocol—reflect their ability to carry out their responsibilities. In this case I can see no reason why Ministers should be able to issue “appropriate” direction in relation to trade with the EU via the short straits but only “necessary” directions over the Irish Sea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I have already said that the Bill does nothing to affect the procedures applying under the CRaG Act 2010. I have been clear on that and it is specifically in front of me as I speak.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

If that is the case, would the Minister be sympathetic to an amendment on Report that puts that in the Bill?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I think my priority is to complete Committee. Of course, I look forward to Report and the amendments proposed and that is when we will have further discussions on this matter—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to the suggestion that Clause 20 should not stand part. During these Committee debates, we have addressed a number of extraordinary provisions in the Bill that give exceptional powers to Ministers, but Clause 20 really does take the biscuit, if that is a parliamentary expression. Let me emphasise what it provides. It provides that the role of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg is excluded, which we will all have a view about, but it goes on to say that Ministers can, by regulations, recreate the role of the European Court of Justice. Is it not quite extraordinary that a Minister should be able, by regulations, to confer a power on an external body to sit as the final judicial body determining issues that are relevant for the purposes of English law? Whether you agree with the role of the Court of Justice or disapprove of it, it cannot be constitutional for a Minister of the Crown to have an exceptional power to decide who and what is the final court of appeal for this country.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, and add that it seems quite astonishingly narrow-minded and short-sighted to want to be rid of the European court in these circumstances. We heard at length last week about the effect on electricity, but there is a wider effect.

May I just put in a word of defence of the European court? I happened to visit it on numerous occasions. It has made some extraordinarily sensible decisions that have affected this country and particularly women, which is one of the reasons I support it. It is quite extraordinary that a Conservative Government, who I always thought had a broad view, should be quite unbelievably narrow-minded, and that some quite erroneous view of sovereignty should be taking over from the crucial role that the ECJ has to play in the work we are considering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

If the role of the court of justice is, as the Minister puts it, a major obstacle because of democratic deficit, as he describes it, can he please explain to the Committee why Clause 20(3) would give an express power to Ministers to make regulations which would provide for a role for the court of justice? Surely that is inconsistent with what he just said.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point. The Government have always anticipated that the United Kingdom courts will be the final arbiter. The clause to which the noble Lord just referred your Lordships provides for the creation of a reference mechanism, but United Kingdom law would ultimately prevail.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, addressed us on Amendments 42 and 43A. I argue that those proposed new clauses are in some respects unnecessary and in some aspects of their drafting inappropriate. Article 14(b) of the protocol already requires the specialised committee to

“examine proposals concerning the implementation and application of this Protocol from the North-South Ministerial Council and North-South Implementation bodies set up under the 1998 Agreement”.

That is an appropriate and valuable role. We submit that, by contrast, the noble Baroness’s amendments would create a statutory obligation for the United Kingdom to support

“proposals relating to the regulation of goods made by the North/South Ministerial Council and other North-South implementation bodies”.

That would cede control over the United Kingdom Government’s stance in the joint committee to a council in which the Irish Government sit. We consider that that would be inappropriate. The Government already ensure that representatives from the Northern Ireland Executive, as I said, are invited to meetings of the joint committee which discusses specific Northern Ireland matters, and which is attended also by the Government of Ireland. Therefore, we submit that there is already ample opportunity for representations to be made at the joint committee from both north and south.

We submit that the aspects of new clauses obliging the Government to lay reports before Parliament are also unnecessary. The Government have committed already to lay Written Ministerial Statements in Parliament before and after each meeting of the joint committee, and already do so. We also provide explanatory memoranda on matters to be discussed at joint committee meetings.

There is a more fundamental objection yet. The Bill is designed to restore the balance across all three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The analogy with the milking stool has already been made: the three legs are of equal importance. To further empower the north-south dimension to the comparative detriment of the east-west dimension, as the amendment would do, will, we submit, exacerbate the problems facing Northern Ireland and undermine that delicate balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. In that spirit, I urge the noble Baroness to not move her amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I keep hearing the words “democratic accountability” and then I look at the Bill and I cannot find any. We have listened as Clauses 4 to 21 have been debated in this Chamber. If we add those clauses together, we have a lamentable lack of democratic accountability. I expect it will be said, “Ah well, as always, the House of Commons can reject any regulations” and so on; and, “We have a long history of how there are 16 different ways in which the regulation-making powers can be exercised.” To that, I will say: but they have not exercised that power since 1979. This is not democratic accountability; this is quite extraordinary legislation, passing huge amounts of power into the hands of the Executive. Others have spoken. Clause 18 creates tertiary power—guidance—which is not quite a regulation of the sort we are talking about but can create matters that require compelling attention from those who have to abide by the guidance.

Let me just look at Clause 22(1), because it makes what has gone so far rather trivial. It states:

“Regulations under this Act may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including provision modifying this Act).”


I then add the words “and any regulations made under it”, because that follows. What it means is that the Bill, having been successfully enacted, could be dismantled by the Government two weeks later. It could be dismantled by a Government three years from now or by a Government 10 years from now. It could restore the very thing that the Bill says it is trying to get rid of—all in the hands of a Minister making regulations under the Act. That is not Henry VIII. I have lost count; I have tried to add it up in different ways. Is it Henry VIII plus Henry VIII for Clauses 4 and 5? That comes to about Clause 79. It cannot be. Is it Henry LXIV, because it is Henry VIII squared? This is an extraordinary power when the Bill is already riddled with Henry VIII powers. I am not jesting about this. The Bill provides for its restoration at any time that the Government of the day choose, or any part of it, or some of it along with other legislation. That is not how we should legislate. Should we not be ashamed of ourselves?

Parliament gave Henry VIII the power to bastardise his first and second children, to say that he was the Pope in England and that he was God’s messenger on earth, to decide the succession, and to say that the monasteries should all come down—the widest act of criminal damage this country has ever seen. Then he produced a Bill giving him the power, by proclamations, to create new laws. I shall not read it all out. What did the successor to that Parliament do? It said no. There was a battle, but in the end that power had this proviso to it put in by the Commons:

“nor that, by any proclamation … any acts, common laws (standing at this present time in strength and force) nor yet any lawful or laudable customs of this realm … shall be infringed, broken or subverted, and specially all those acts standing this hour in force which have been made in the King’s Highness’s time”.

He was not allowed to modify an Act of Parliament by proclamation.

We do not have proclamations anymore; we have statutory instruments. We have regulation-making powers that amount to a modern form of proclamation. We must not agree to clauses of this kind in any Bill. Those that we have agreed to—shame on us. We must not agree to this one. We must insist on the determination and, in its case, the courage shown by the 1539 Parliament not to give the King the powers he wanted. We must not give the Government the power they want in this clause.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, as we go through this Committee, we are discussing clauses that confound constitutional principle in ever more astonishing ways. I entirely agree with what was just said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. It is quite extraordinary that we should be asked to approve a clause that would confer power on a Minister to make by regulations

“any provision … including provision modifying this Act”.

The Committee has heard a number of powerful speeches over its four days explaining why it is wasting parliamentary time in analysing the Bill when it is a sideshow to the need to resolve the dispute with the EU. Whatever view you take about that issue, what is a manifest waste of time is for this Committee, and for Parliament on Report, at Third Reading and in the House of Commons on ping-pong if it comes to that, to debate, amend and approve legislation after lengthy debate, only for Ministers to have the power to say, “I don’t care about that. Parliament might have agreed it, but I’m going to set it aside. I’m going to substitute something else.” What is the point of parliamentary debate if that is what a Minister can do?

Indeed, such is the breadth of this provision that a Minister would have a power to substitute in the Bill something that he or she approves of that has been specifically rejected by Parliament. Parliament might have passed an amendment against the views of the Government, yet, under this clause, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, two weeks or three years later the Minister can say, “That may be what Parliament has done, but I’m going to insert something different”. As the noble and learned Lord said, we really have to take a stand. This cannot be right in principle and it cannot be acceptable to Parliament.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I want to add to the two speeches that have just been given, with every word of which I agree. The Minister may say that we are being hypocritical, as was said earlier, because there have been earlier Bills where we have allowed Henry VIII clauses; but I have been in this House since 2006 and in my time I have never seen a Bill anything like this one, with enhanced Henry VIII powers—or Henry LXIV powers. To my knowledge, in my time we have never had a Bill that has gone so far beyond what one might almost call the “normal” Henry VIII clauses. I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. It really is time that the Government stand back and ask, “Is this actually reasonable? What is it that we are trying to do?” It is utterly unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Perhaps I could invite the noble Lord, when he writes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to explain why it is appropriate for Ministers to have the power to make regulations to modify this very Act. Can he specifically address how Clause 22(1) fits with the clause mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, Clause 22(3), which contains the express exception:

“Regulations … may not create or facilitate border arrangements”?


Yet, as I understand this Bill, Ministers under Clause 22(1) could simply disapply Clause 22(3). It would be completely otiose. What is the point of having a restriction in the Bill that a Minister, by regulation, could simply disapply?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I shall of course cover the specific point the noble Lord has highlighted, as well. I appreciate that it is for the Government to make the case on the specific provision contained in the Bill to ensure that we can, as far as possible, satisfy the issues and the questions being raised.

Clause 22 sets out the general scope and nature of the powers contained in the Bill. This will ensure the powers have the appropriate scope to implement the aims of the Bill. The clause sets out that regulations made under the defined purpose of the powers in this Bill can make any provision—this was a point noble Lords made—for that purpose that could be made by an Act of Parliament. This includes amending the Bill, as the noble Lord has just pointed out, or making retrospective provision.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, the clause confirms that regulations under this Bill may not create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland that feature, at the border, either physical infrastructure or checks and controls that did not exist before exit day.

Subsection (6) provides that a Minister can facilitate other powers under this Bill to be exercisable exclusively, concurrently or jointly with devolved Administrations. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised a specific point just now, which does require clarification on two elements within the clause. I will make sure that they are covered.

A concern was raised about the ability of the Government to work with the devolved Administrations. As I said on an earlier group, the former Foreign Secretary wrote to the devolved Administrations and we are engaging with them on the implementation and provisions of this Bill. It is the Government’s view that these new powers are necessary to make the regime work smoothly and to provide certainty to businesses.

While recommending in Committee that this clause stand part of the Bill, I recognise that, while we share moments of humour in Committee, it is right that these detailed concerns were tabled in the way they were. This allows the Government—

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

I hope all those speaking to Clause 12 standing part understand that there is a fundamental difference in approach to subsidies between the EU and UK. The EU tends to favour money handed out to companies at its discretion for the companies’ direct benefit—frequently, of course, through individual states. We like to empower investors and, as such, the markets to decide where the money should go. It is, in effect, the investors who decide which companies will benefit from their money, which is enhanced by a tax break. Like so many areas in business life, we have a different way of thinking from the EU and we have to protect our interests first. Concerns that this is a breach of other international treaties or laws are fair to raise and difficult for many of us non-lawyers to understand. But even if they are correct, what I do know is that UK companies need protection to enable them to carry on being financed in the way our Parliament feels appropriate.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

May I ask the noble Lord two questions? First, should these problems not have been considered by the United Kingdom Government before they signed the protocol? Secondly, is there any reason why these problems cannot be raised in the negotiations with the EU to take place in the near future?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I cannot answer for the UK Government on whether they should have been raised before; that is clearly historical and we are where we are. In theory, there could be a negotiation with the EU to try to deal with some of these problems, but we would be on the back foot and there would be no reason for the EU to agree, whereas Clause 12 deals with it satisfactorily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I should just like to ask a question of whichever Minister will reply to this brief debate. I am of course entirely on the side of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in what they said. I understand why my noble friend raised his commercial points, but between us and him is a great gulf fixed. What we are concerned about is the arbitrary and unfettered power of Ministers.

I have great respect for all three of the Ministers who are handling this Bill, and great sympathy for them, but are they truly happy to exercise such unfettered powers without reference to Parliament and proper debate? We go back to where we were on Monday: the imbalance of power and the excessive power of the Executive, which has been growing like a mad Topsy for the last few years. It is deeply disturbing to anybody who believes in parliamentary government, and I want to know if it is deeply disturbing to the Ministers on Front Bench this afternoon, because if it is not, it should be. I would be much more worried than when I got up if they tell me that they do not mind.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Could I suggest to the noble Lord, before he sits down, that the real question is not whether the Ministers on the Front Bench would be happy to exercise these powers, but whether they would be happy for their opponents, were they to be in office, to exercise these powers.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

As so often, the noble Lord puts it very well. It ought to be a parliamentary lesson to us all: never seek to take to yourself powers that you would not be happy to see the other side have. The noble Lord put it very succinctly and I endorse what he said.

--- Later in debate ---

So it is very clear that the original approach laid down in Article 50 was that you could enter into temporary and transitional arrangements which were necessary to ensure that, in case there was no final agreement, no subsequent TCA, there would be some appropriate arrangements for the Northern Ireland border. It was expected that if subsequently they could not enter into negotiations until they had completed the withdrawal agreement under Article 50, under the TCA that would deal with such things as subsidy arrangements. Largely, it did deal with such things as subsidy arrangements, and they should not be dealt with under a temporary protocol which ceases to have any validity if, after good-faith negotiations, we fail to reach an agreement. We should then repudiate it, accepting the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

There are many difficulties with that argument, the first being that there are good-faith negotiations that the United Kingdom is involved in. One cannot assume that they will not succeed. We do have a protocol.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made a point which has been made previously in Committee, concerning the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. There is a provision in the protocol that expressly addresses democratic consent in Northern Ireland: Article 18. It sets out a detailed procedure to ensure that there is democratic consent, and it requires in detail provisions to ensure the consent, in due course, of both communities, the nationalist and the unionist. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, will say that it is far from perfect and that he does not like the detail set out there—but that is what we agreed. It simply cannot be said that the subject of democratic consent has been ignored. It was negotiated and it was agreed.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

Does the noble Lord accept that the provisions of Article 18 are contrary to the agreement that was made between the European Union and the UK Government in December 2017? Article 50 of the joint report said that before there could be any regulatory difference between Northern Ireland the rest of the United Kingdom, there had to be the assent of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive. The current arrangements are in breach of an EU-UK agreement and the process for giving consent is deliberately made a non-cross-community vote, contrary to the Belfast agreement.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

It is elementary as a matter of diplomacy and of international law that a country is perfectly entitled to reach a new agreement in the circumstances as they then exist. That is what happened when the protocol was agreed. Both sides agreed a mechanism in Article 18 for ensuring democratic consent.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for effectively giving way. He rightly said, both in his letter to the Times and his remarks today, that, as long as there was good faith, fair enough, but if good-faith negotiations failed to reach an agreement—not if there was any lack of good faith, I think—we would be entitled under Article 62 to repudiate the treaty.

Certainly, the EU is showing a lack of fulsome good faith in two respects. First, it is refusing to accept in the current negotiations that any change to the protocol can be made—only to its implementation. Secondly, it is repudiating its original position that it could not enter into a permanent arrangement, which was the whole basis of the negotiations we entered into under Article 50. It is now trying to make something which was intrinsically temporary, and which it said could be only temporary and provisional, into something permanent. I would have thought that, in both respects, had the British Government taken such positions, he and his friendly noble Lords would have denounced it as an appalling demonstration of bad faith.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

If the noble Lord’s position is that the EU is acting in bad faith, the United Kingdom, if it takes that view, is perfectly entitled to use the procedures set out in the protocol of independent arbitration—if it does not like that, it can go to the Court of Justice—to resolve any dispute. What the United Kingdom cannot do is ignore the dispute resolution mechanisms that are set out in the protocol and simply make an assertion that it thinks there is no good faith. Indeed, I had not understood it to be the position of the Government at the moment that there was no good faith. They are about to enter into negotiations.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, it is certainly my understanding that the negotiations are being undertaken in good faith on both sides, and it would be useful to have that confirmed by Ministers when they reply.

There are a few issues here, but I say first that it is very helpful to have the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, make his contribution on his concerns about chapter 10 of the protocol, because sometimes our discussions can get a little philosophical—that may be the wrong word—and it is very helpful to have them grounded in reality. His view is that he does not want a scheme that is any different to that which exists in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is understood and we know why he thinks that. We may not feel that it is realistic in the circumstances that we find ourselves in after Brexit, but there are most certainly good prospects to negotiate, come to agreement and perhaps find exemptions that would give him close enough to what he needs to be able to move us forward and give clarity and certainty to businesses in Northern Ireland, which is surely what we all want to see.

I am worried about the potential for retaliatory measures should Clause 12 of the Bill come into force. We know that this is something the EU is deeply concerned about. That does not mean that we cannot negotiate a much better position for ourselves, but there is the prospect of some form of retaliatory measure being forthcoming from the EU. I would like to know from the Minister what assessment has been made of the potential for this—although I am not quite sure which Minister to address my gaze to on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

As always, the noble and learned Baroness speaks great sense. I shall address very briefly a point that is not about electricity, although I hope it may spark some general interest.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

It is getting late—we are almost at dinnertime, I hope. The point is about international law. Clause 13 would exclude the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is conferred by the protocol. The test of necessity under international law requires consideration of the necessity for resiling from the protocol by reference to each individual provision: we do not look at it as a whole, we ask whether there is a necessity for this or that. My question to the Minister is: what is the necessity in international law for excluding the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice? What is it about the European Court of Justice that so concerns Ministers?

We have debated at some length, and I agree with all the speeches that have been made on the subject, the difference between “appropriate” and “necessary”, but the test in international law is necessity. Ministers may well think it is appropriate, for political reasons, to exclude the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—I well understand why that may be the case—but can the Minister please tell me how it satisfies the test of necessity to exclude that jurisdiction?

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, this is the third day we have been debating the Northern Ireland protocol and I know Members may be tired or exhausted, but it seems from a unionist point of view that a lot of Members of this House are either tone deaf or totally blind—because they desire to be—about the reality of the situation with the protocol. I do not know how many times Members have to be told that the protocol is totally unacceptable to any unionist elected representative, any unionist within the Northern Ireland Assembly, or indeed any unionist Member who sits in either of the Houses here. That seems to have been just cast aside.

A few moments ago, we listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who stressed how important it is that the protocol is not just re-established but is put fully into operation. Then she stressed how important it is that the Northern Ireland Assembly is given its place to support this protocol. I say gently to the noble Baroness, for whom I have a personal respect, having known her for many years in the other place and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, that maybe she has forgotten that majority rule is no longer in existence in Northern Ireland. In fact, the behest of her community, and indeed the marches on the streets and other activities by others she would not necessarily associate herself with, ensured that majority rule was no longer in existence in Northern Ireland. She is basing her remarks upon the acceptance of the Northern Ireland Assembly, debating and then supporting the protocol with Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance, the Greens and a few other parties, but not one unionist.

Maybe the Committee needs to learn this fact: the very basis of the Belfast agreement was predicated upon cross-community support, not majority rule. That was decided, and indeed lauded and applauded, by every part of this House. We are also constantly reminded that nothing, but nothing, must be done to undermine the Belfast agreement. I noticed that when the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was speaking, he mentioned the polls and what the polls are saying. I suggest we should be very careful about what the polls are saying, because they certainly got it wrong on Brexit and it seems that they got it wrong on the election in Israel just yesterday. I suggest that, since we listened to the Secretary of State say that Northern Ireland is heading to the polls, rather than telling us what the polls are saying, when the people of Northern Ireland speak we will find out what the unionist community believes about the Northern Ireland protocol.

It may surprise noble Lords, but there is a party in this House that when it takes a manifesto to the people, actually stands by its manifesto. I know that is a novel thing for the Government Benches over the years, but it is not novel for the Democratic Unionist Party. I suggest that noble Lords refrain from telling us, because to be honest, I am fed up with people telling us what the people of Northern Ireland want. Let the electorate speak. The Minister, or rather the deputy at the Northern Ireland Office, has told us that we will shortly hear the date of the Northern Ireland election. Therefore, the Northern Ireland protocol will be put to the electorate and we will see what the unionist population believes concerning that protocol.

I note, before I finish, that on a previous occasion when I was speaking the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that it was novel for us to support or base our opinions on the Belfast agreement when we opposed that agreement. I remind him why we opposed it. It was because the Belfast agreement was putting unreconstructed terrorists into government who would not support the police or law and order. In fact, it took another agreement, the St Andrews agreement, to bring them to the place where they had to say that they would give up their weapons, that the IRA weapons would have to go and that they would actually support the police and call upon their community. So, when noble Lords mention that we did not support the Belfast agreement, that was on the basis of the Belfast agreement at that time bringing in unreconstructed terrorists.

As one who suffered from those terrorists, I say without apology to the noble Lord and to the Committee that I did not agree at that time, but I am also long enough in public life to know that the Belfast agreement is an international agreement and therefore this House has constantly told us that we must do nothing to undermine that agreement. I can tell the Committee clearly that, day by day, those who say that the protocol must continue are undermining the Belfast agreement within the unionist community. I trust and pray that the Government will wisely accept that the Bill is not perfect, but it is certainly better than anything I have heard anyone else suggest we should move forward on.

--- Later in debate ---

It is the Government’s view that it is inappropriate for the CJEU to be the final arbiter of certain disputes between the UK and EU law under the protocol. The Bill removes the effect in domestic law of the jurisdiction of the CJEU in enforcing or interpreting law that applies in Northern Ireland. The Government are confident—notwithstanding the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which ignited my response, if I may continue with the bad jokes at this hour—in the ability of UK courts to interpret the law which applies in Northern Ireland. But, of course, the powers in the Bill enable the Government to deal with any issues that might arise in relation to the interpretation of EU law underpinning—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord said that the Government take the view that it is inappropriate for the court of justice to retain jurisdiction, but why is it necessary—that is the test in international law—to exclude its jurisdiction?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I have given the Government’s position, and I am going to totally digress at this point from my speaking notes. I am reminded of something my noble friend Lord Howard, who is not in his place, said to me during my introduction back in 2011, regard people’s various insights. This also relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I remember a debate on the withdrawal Bill, taken by my noble friend Lord Callanan, during which certain specific issues were discussed and we talked about the case against the Government at that time. I remember the interventions that were made as I sat next to my noble friend. One was in reference to the actual case. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, corrected the Minister, saying that, actually, as lead counsel on the case, perhaps he could provide an insight. As my noble friend fought the defence of Article 50, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, stood up and suggested, “What would I know? After all, I only wrote Article 50”. So, on this issue, where I am testing a principle of law, I repeat what the Government’s position is but I take note of what the noble Lord has said in this respect.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Very helpful.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

But what I would say is that, if you are going to give the Assembly a say on these matters, then respect the Belfast agreement. Why change it? Give it a cross-community vote. What is the problem with that? I humbly say that, when it came to the protocol itself, all of those safeguards were of course jettisoned, and we need therefore to go back to the rationale for this Bill. Whether it is through the Bill or new negotiations, we have got to get to a situation where we have a position which both unionists and nationalists can support in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I am not going to comment on the politics of Northern Ireland—I am a mere lawyer—but the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, raised a particular point on Article 16, and the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, as I understood him, was that there were discussions about that, and statements were made at various times by various politicians. But the fact of the matter is that Article 16 is part of the protocol; it cannot be ignored.

What it says is that it provides a procedure for dealing with

“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade”.

It is a very broad concept; it provides a means by which such disputes can be resolved and, as I have said before in debates on this Bill, I simply do not understand how the test of “necessity” in international law can be satisfied when the Government have available, and are not using, a provision that is expressly provided in the protocol. You simply cannot resile from an international agreement because of problems when the protocol itself, the international agreement, provides a means of addressing them; it is as simple as that.

There is one other legal point. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, deserves an answer. He rightly emphasised that Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol preserve the Belfast agreement in various respects, upholding and emphasising it. As I understood it, his argument is that the Bill is consistent with international law because the protocol, in his view, undermines the Belfast agreement. However, if I may respectfully say so, there is an insuperable difficulty with that argument: this country signed the protocol on the basis of the view that the protocol was consistent with the Belfast agreement in the context of the difficult problems posed by Brexit.

Having signed the agreement, with respect, it is trite as a matter of international law that the United Kingdom cannot unilaterally resile from the protocol because, under political pressure, it now wishes to take a different view. Therefore, this Bill, as I have suggested before, is quite simply inconsistent with international law.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate that I am a relative newcomer to this House, but I had understood that in Committee discussion is supposed to focus on the amendments before us. What I have heard today is very much a rerun of the discussion we heard in this place last week, with repeated invocations of issues of principle around this Bill and the protocol, which are extremely important but might not be resolved in this debate simply by repeating the points over and over.

I have been trying to follow the detail of this on my electronic device, with my documents in front of me—I know the technique may not be familiar to everybody in this House, but I am trying my best. I was not intending to speak but, as some points of principle have been raised, I feel it is right to put certain circumstances on record.

I will make three brief points. First, I feel we are having a highly abstract discussion about a very concrete and real situation. Noble Lords all know what is happening in Northern Ireland at the moment and what has happened over the last year and in recent months: the constant, gradual deterioration of the real political situation in Northern Ireland, the undermining of the institutions of the Good Friday agreement, and the degradation of some of the habits of co-operation and working together that we have seen over the years. This is a real situation, which must be dealt with. This Bill is a way of dealing with it and the Government—rightly, in my view—believe it is the best way of doing so.

We have to engage with that. We have to take real-life action to deal with the problems that exist on the ground in Northern Ireland. Important though discussions of international law and a reinvocation of why we signed this agreement may be, they do not deal with the real situation on the ground now. The Government are the Government of this country, and they are right to put forward proposals that deal with this situation. The best way to deal with it would be to expedite this Bill, not to delay, defer or withdraw it. The best contributor to stability in Northern Ireland would be to get this on the statute book and enable people to know what they are dealing with.

Secondly—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

In effect, we have heard this evening a reiteration of Dunning’s Motion in the reign of George III:

“The influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.”


We are seeing in the Bill not only an abrogation of international law and our obligations, which is what primarily concerns me, but in the process, by the design of the Bill, an accretion of power to Ministers and the Executive—an unbalancing of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.

The Executive are answerable to Parliament in our constitution. Here, great chunks are being given to the power of the Executive. We owe an enormous debt to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and his committee, and other committees in this House, which have pointed this out calmly—to use a word I used earlier—but very forcefully. We are embarking on a road towards executive superiority such as is incompatible with our constitution, which is moving away in the 21st century from what our forefathers fought for in the past. We cannot emphasise that too greatly.

The person who could make this speech far better than I and whose name is on the amendments spoken to eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Time and again, in a variety of Bills and contexts, he has pointed out to your Lordships’ House how the accumulation of Henry VIII powers in the hands of Ministers, without proper accountability to the House, is the road towards executive domination such as is incompatible with our constitution, as I said a few moments ago.

In wholeheartedly supporting these amendments, I urge my noble friend, when he comes to reply from the Front Bench, to address this issue and address it directly. I have great admiration for my noble friend Lord Caine. I certainly have great admiration for his knowledge of, and concern for, Northern Ireland, to which he has dedicated a large part of his life; but is he really happy to be put in a position, or see any of his ministerial colleagues put in a position, where they can override Parliament effectively by diktat?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord, particularly in relation to his tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. In his absence—as his junior as it were—I draw this Committee’s attention to the quite extraordinary report of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory and Reform Committee to which reference has been made before, particularly at Second Reading, but it bears repetition. Its seventh report of this Session says at paragraph 4 that this is

“a skeleton bill that confers on Ministers a licence to legislate in the widest possible terms.”

It continues:

“The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament”.


That is quite an extraordinary criticism of this legislation. It is made not by novices but by highly experienced and respected Members of your Lordships’ House across party lines. I find it deeply regrettable that the Government should think it appropriate to continue with a Bill that has attracted such cross-party criticism.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I came into Parliament nearly 40 years ago and was told first of all that you should never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer. Now that I have been here so long, I feel that I can take the risk of asking some questions to which I do not know the answer, about a very important aspect of the Bill that has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

There are two criticisms of the Bill, the first being that it is allegedly against international law. I do not believe that and have not really heard any answers to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. What happens when you have two conflicting international obligations? The second criticism is that it relies, very largely and to an almost unprecedented degree, on Henry VIII clauses. Historically, I am very reluctant to rely extensively on Henry VIII clauses, and I was rather shocked by the committee report to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just referred.

The questions that I want to ask, and to which I do not know the answer, are: first, what is the alternative in the context in which we are to have open-ended Henry VIII clauses; and secondly, why did the Government not adopt that alternative? I assume that the alternative to the Henry VIII clauses is to spell out in detail, in primary legislation, what you intend to do, but the context in which we are doing it is that we are simultaneously legislating and negotiating.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said that we cannot do that. It seems to me perfectly compatible with the doctrine of necessity to do that. We have to do something, we need the power to do something, we have taken the legal power to do something, but we would like that something to be negotiated if possible. So we are simultaneously negotiating and legislating. If we spell out in primary legislation, in detail, the outcome that we want to get, in the context of a negotiation that involves give and take, we either have to spell out the maximum we want—what we want to take without any give—or the minimum we are prepared to accept: what we are prepared to give without any prospect of taking.

In this unusual situation of having to have the legal powers to act while we are negotiating and hoping for a negotiated solution, I am not sure what alternative there is to what the Government have done. I would be grateful to hear what noble Lords would do who share my reluctance to rely on Henry VIII clauses. Effectively, we are saying we are recreating the royal prerogative in the negotiation, giving the Government a free hand, while giving them the power to take legislative action if those negotiations do not achieve a satisfactory result.

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Lords Chamber

So I say to the Minister: I will back the sanctions. I am sorry that we have come to this point. I am sorry that the Russian state does not realise that common sense, decency and good practice should lead it to pursue what it sees as its legitimate expectations, but we do not, through a path of peaceful negotiation. What has been done is no longer acceptable in international politics, and we should make that very clear. All I ask is that the Minister co-ordinates with his European colleagues and we have a united European view, in so far as we can, on this matter.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I will make a short contribution. In this very interesting debate, mention has been made of Russians who have obtained funds by corruption and who come to this country and buy property or otherwise invest. Is the Minister confident that these regulations confer power to act against such persons? As he said, the only change that is made by these regulations is to give power to take action against those who have obtained

“a benefit from or supporting the Government of Russia”.

As the Minister rightly said, that concept is narrowly defined in new Regulation 6(4). The fact that you have obtained vast wealth by corruption in Russia, and you have come here and bought property or engaged in other economic activity, is not necessarily sufficient to bring you within the scope of these regulations, as I read them, but I would be delighted if the Minister tells me that I am wrong.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s statement, and will be brief. I am also very grateful to the Government and the usual channels for enabling us to have a debate tomorrow. However, it is true that the regulations we are discussing today—which I think the whole House supports—are out of date. Indeed, I do not know when my noble friend drafted his amendment, but my guess is that everything has been overtaken by the events we woke up to find this morning.

What is going on is not just war of a kind that many of my generation never thought we would see, but also a battle of ideas and information. This morning, I watched Russia Today. I am not in favour of banning it, because it is interesting and important to know what the other side—as it were—is saying about this conflict. To give it credit, I saw a report from Berlin which listed the overwhelming criticism by European leaders on what is happening. However, I am sure that the Foreign Office and the Government are monitoring what the Russian people are being told. I put it to the Minister that we should do more to influence public opinion, because sanctions, if they are to work, are not going to work just on the people at whom they are aimed. The world is a rather more sophisticated and international place than it used to be. There will be people in Russia who are eager to understand more about what we are saying has happened and for us to use our power of information to counter the disinformation that they are being fed.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very surprised at the Minister’s answers in relation to the £400 million. Does he accept that an international arbitration tribunal—an independent tribunal—has ruled that this country owes £400 million to the state of Iran? Does he accept that? Does he also accept that it is vital that this country complies with its international obligations to meet international arbitration tribunal reports? Does he also accept that to pay that sum without further delay would be to meet our obligations, and not to pay a ransom?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, no one disputes that there is a historic debt, one which was owed to pre-revolutionary Iran. There is no dispute or debate about that. However, here I am answering a Question about Nazanin, yet the majority of questions relate to that money. The combination of that issue with the issue that we are dealing with—an appallingly tragic human case—is exactly what we should be avoiding. Otherwise, this does become a hostage situation and any payment of any money becomes payment for a hostage. That is not in our international current, medium or long-term interests.

Environment Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to intervene briefly to stress the importance of Amendment 24 and the associated amendment relating to Northern Ireland.

I recognise that the Minister himself and the Government’s own amendments in part reflect the concern about the independence of the OEP. I welcome in broad terms the letter I received from the Minister although I have to say that yesterday was probably not the best day to receive a letter whose first reassurance was that it was all going to be all right because it is in the Conservative Party manifesto.

However, these reassurances do not go anywhere near as far as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. If the Government do not accept these amendments, there is a much bigger story than one about appointments and guidance. In many ways, the Bill is a great Bill and I thoroughly support the bulk of it. However, if we do not accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, or if the Minister does not agree to bring forward something very like it at Third Reading, then the credibility of the Bill—all its 145 clauses and 25 schedules—is at stake. Ultimately the effectiveness of all the good parts of the Bill depends on us having an office for environmental protection that is objective and independent and a system of environmental regulation and enforcement that is itself effective and independent.

As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, post-Brexit we were promised a system of environmental regulation that would be at least as effective as the past EU regime when we had the Commission checking on the actions of member states and our public bodies. If the office for environmental protection—the body overseeing what is arguably the most important job of the Government: the long-term future of our environment —is not seen as independent, it will not be respected. It will be challenged and much of the good work that is behind this Bill stands to fail.

As I have said, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is not just about procedural niceties in making appointments. It is about the credibility and effectiveness of everything we are working on in the Bill and in this House. I beg the House to support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I share the view around the House that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, have made a compelling case for their amendments on a fundamental issue. It would be of enormous assistance if the Minister when he comes to reply would identify which part of Amendment 24 he objects to. Is it really the Government’s case that the OEP should not have

“complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions”?

Is that the Government’s case? I would be surprised and very disappointed if it were. If the Government accept that the OEP should have complete discretion, surely a matter of this importance should be in the Bill.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, no Minister likes an authority such as the OEP, because the Minister is undoubtedly convinced that his policy is absolutely right. However, when one stops being a Minister and looks back, one realises the importance of bodies such as the OEP.

I think my concern was summed up beautifully by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, when he said that this is the one thing we have to get right. We were promised a totally independent body, equivalent to that which operated when we were in the EU. I accept that the Government should not be fined for not doing the right thing, but the OEP not only is—but has to be seen to be—totally independent. The Bill as drafted at the moment does not cover that. I hope that my noble friend will not be intransigent and stand out against this amendment but will go back for one more go with the other people in the department and the Secretary of State, understanding the enormous support there is in this House for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. It would be so much better if the Government solved this problem rather than having a Division. My noble friend was very good to me on my amendment on soil and has made a promise; I hope that he will be able to do the same thing again.