Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Beith Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Beith]

Leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.

[Lord Beith (LD) [V]]

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

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

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

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

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


The agreement continues:

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


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

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

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

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

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


The Minister’s letter said that the Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the instincts of the noble Lord exactly. On international obligations, the whole point about the last resort is that, if international obligations were not being adhered to in a certain part of the British family, it would be the responsibility of the UK Government to act accordingly. All I say in answering the noble Lord— positively, I hope—is that I believe that everyone I have spoken to who would have responsibility would work collaboratively and exhaust every option available. It would be triggered only if all those options were exhausted in order to adhere to international obligations. This is my point.

Also—if I am allowed to say this and if this is the last moment—I respect immensely all noble Lords who have participated in the consideration of this Fisheries Bill. This is indeed my first experience of us dealing with a Bill as the first House; I can tell your Lordships that, when I saw the number of amendments coming back from the other place, I was not the only one whose heart may have sunk a bit. I think it shows that, when we are the second House and have other points to make, the other place sends us messages back as well. I place on record my deep appreciation of the Front Bench opposite and the Back Benches on all sides of the House for the collaborative way in which I believe we have worked, seeking to do the best we can for the marine environment and the future of our fisheries communities—which, after all, bring us such nutritious food, often in very difficult circumstances. I place my thanks on record and have no doubt that we will have further work to do.

[Lord Beith (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he has taken over this but I am afraid that he was not as persuasive as he sometimes is—certainly for me. I want to pick up on a couple of his points before thanking the noble Lords who took part in this debate.

On international obligations, the dependencies understand and carry out their international obligations. They have the legislative and policing capacity to do so, and the UK Government would not face any problem in persuading them to take the necessary and appropriate action where it was clear that it was needed. There are many areas in which international obligations exist and the Government do not appear, as far as I can see, to be running around creating powers like this in areas in which conditions could arise where there are international obligations to be satisfied. The existing system works and does not need to be changed.

Secondly, on the legal situation in both Guernsey and Jersey, which was so helpfully raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, the note that was passed to the Minister was not really about that—I do not blame him for that—but about the legal situation on including a permitted extension clause in the Bill in the first place. It does not really address what would happen under Guernsey or Jersey law if the Government attempted to use the power. The amount of uncertainty that exists in that area is something that the Government will have to take into account.

The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the points he raised illustrated the high level of knowledge and experience that Peers brought to the debate. I mention the noble Lords, Lord Anderson, Lord Faulkner, Lord Northbrook and Lord Pannick, the noble Baronesses, Lady Couttie and Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell, who suggested that the Minister should withdraw the clause, which could be achieved by accepting my amendment, in order to discuss the matter further with Guernsey and Jersey.

The Minister has not accepted good advice but, at such a late stage, in the face of Commons acceptance of the clause, our options are limited, and I do not think a vote would be helpful. I can only hope that the very severe response from experienced and knowledgeable Members of this House has made clear to Ministers that on no account should they make use of these powers without having obtained the consent of the Crown dependencies to do so. They would face a very serious reaction if they were to attempt such a course without consent. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion 22A withdrawn.