Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Lord Pannick and Lord Newby

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 15th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

I am not referring to particular citizens; I am referring to the very clearly expressed statement, which I heard and I think other noble Lords heard, that it is inappropriate and wrong for “unelected judges”—those were his words—to decide on the law of the land. That is their job. We pride ourselves on the rule of law in this country, and that is a fundamental element of the rule of law. I say that not just because I have an interest in this matter: my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich referred to the fact that I have given advice to one particular citizen, Mrs Gina Miller, and I have given the legal advice that for a Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for the express purpose of preventing Parliament performing its constitutional responsibilities would be unlawful.

However, we are not here today to debate the law; we are here to address, as my noble friend Lord Anderson rightly said, what would be a constitutional outrage. I strongly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend, which is a means by which this House can prevent such an appalling eventuality.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, for taking up my invitation to speak before I did. Apart from enlivening proceedings, it has given me the chance to respond to some of the things he said. I congratulate him on having a very acute and astute understanding of the policies of the Liberal Democrats when it comes to Brexit. These are not exactly secret, but he got them to a T.

One thing, however, that I think the noble Lord was wrong about was the suggestion that because we want the people to decide on Brexit, and we would prefer it if they decided they did not want Brexit, we are saying—far from it—that there should be no vote in September in the Commons about a no-deal Brexit. I would welcome such a vote. This amendment, this procedural gambit, is necessary only because we believe it is reasonable to take precautions against the new Prime Minister preventing the Commons having a vote. The only reason for it is that everybody in your Lordships’ House knows that, if the Commons votes on a no-deal Brexit, it will vote it down. The only way you get that outcome is by some kind of chicanery: the chicanery of proroguing Parliament purely for that political purpose. We believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the other signatories to the amendment, that that would be an improper use of Prorogation.

The noble Lord, Lord True, said that this Session has gone on far too long. Perhaps it has. I should be delighted to have Prorogation on 1 November, but Prorogation requires a Prime Minister with a plan and a Queen’s Speech with some substance. If the incoming Prime Minister has such a plan and such a speech by 1 November, the entire country will be delighted. We fear that there is nothing but vacuity where there should be a programme and that Prorogation will continue far beyond 31 October or 1 November because the Government do not know what to put in a Queen’s Speech.

It is extraordinary that your Lordships’ House is having to resort to a procedural gambit in order to try to prevent a Prime Minister subverting the constitution. That sort of thing happens in tinpot dictatorships. We go around the world saying, “Of course, it does not happen here because we are so much more grounded in constitutional principle. No, it could not happen here”. The truth is that the incoming Prime Minister has not ruled out such a thing. It would have been very easy for him to have said, “Of course, I would never contemplate such a step because I know that it would be a constitutional impropriety and shameful for our democracy”, but he has refused to say that. What are we expected to do? Just sit on our hands and trust in the good sense of the incoming Prime Minister? There may be some people in the Conservative Party prepared to do that, but it does not extend much beyond that.

That is why we have an amendment which is a procedural gambit in a Bill about Northern Ireland: because it is all we have. We have seen no other way to put something on the statute book to prevent the constitutional principles of this country being ripped up. It is of course unsatisfactory to do that, but it is because we are in an extremely unsatisfactory position. That is why we strongly support the amendment.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Pannick and Lord Newby

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, over recent months a number of quite extraordinary claims have been made about the consequences of actions relating to Brexit. The claim of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that all that separates us from tyranny is whether we take this statutory instrument before or after a committee has expressed a view on it seems up there with the most extraordinary.

This House has been considering statutory instruments that are some 650 pages long. In this case, we are looking at a statutory instrument that is of minuscule length, the meaning of which is absolutely clear and the purpose of which is not disputed by anybody. Therefore, it seems that if ever there were a case where we could do without the normal rules with no jeopardy to the future of the state, this is it. Who in this House thinks we will not pass this statutory instrument? Who thinks that there is any ambiguity in its wording? The sooner we have certainty on a whole raft of Brexit issues, the better. This is one straightforward, easy bit. I suggest we deal with the easy bit tomorrow and then start worrying a bit more about the harder bits.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the Leader of the House, but when she moves the Motion tomorrow relating to the substance of this statutory instrument, could she address a question not of tyranny, but of legality? A number of lawyers have expressed concern about the legality of this statutory instrument. The concern is that it sets out two alternative exit days: 12 April or 22 May. The power of Ministers to vary exit day is contained in Section 20(4)(a) of the EU withdrawal Act 2018, which says that a Minister may by regulations,

“amend the definition of ‘exit day’ … to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom”.

The legal concern which some lawyers have expressed is that a power to specify the day and time when the treaties are to cease to apply is not satisfied by identifying two possibilities; it is not possible, if this SI is enacted, to identify exit day simply by reading it.

I emphasise that I am not adopting this argument but simply drawing attention to it. I ask the Leader, before tomorrow, to consider this point; to consult, if necessary, with the law officers; and to give an assurance to this House that the Government have considered the point and are satisfied that this statutory instrument is a valid one. Whatever one’s views on the politics of this difficult situation, I hope we can all agree that it would be complete disaster to adopt an invalid statutory instrument on such an important point.