I will match his “Get rid of Clause 11” with “Get rid of them all”, because that is our position.
The Advocate-General said at Second Reading:
“the peril … was not inherent in the protocol’s provision.” —[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 764.]
But he then said today that the “problem lies in the protocol”, which the Government themselves negotiated. So, we are back to the situation regarding the Government’s proposals, and it seems that the Government are going to rest on an assertion of necessity, with an assumption that it is not going to be tested. It surely is not welcome for us, in passing legislation, that the Government are effectively asking people to challenge it in the international courts—I can only imagine that it would be the ICJ.
The ICJ has stated in clear terms that invoking necessity on wrongfulness and not adhering to a treaty commitment cannot be a permanent solution. So I ask the Advocate-General, if he responds to any of the points that I am going to make, whether the Government agree with that. The ICJ has stated on a number of occasions that, even if invoking necessity was upheld, it is only temporary in order to remove the grave and imminent peril; it is not permanent, because it still means that that party is in breach of the treaty.
So if long-term, permanent changes are required to be made, that will require protocol changes and treaty changes, and the Government have not said that. They cannot invoke necessity if they believe that this is a permanent solution. The reason why I say that with confidence is—the Advocate-General, in schooling the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and me as non-lawyers, said we were “less wrong” on this—that, customarily in international law, we have to look at the record of the ICJ. I asked the Library of the House to provide me with information on when the ICJ has upheld parties who have invoked necessity. It has
never been upheld, for the very good reason that it has to be limited, and “grave and immanent peril” on a cumulative basis is considered an exceptionally high bar. The Advocate-General must know that.
Of the two cases that the Advocate-General cited, the one involving Hungary and Slovakia—which was referred to by my noble friend—I found fascinating, as I mentioned before, when I read the judgment. The Advocate-General said that necessity
“was recognised by the International Court of Justice in 1997 in a case between Slovakia and Hungary regarding a dam on the Danube.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 765]
As I referred to before, the Government seem to be relying on one case regarding communist Hungary in 1989 which the ICJ threw out.
The second case mentioned, involving Canada and fisheries, could refer to two cases. In one, the ICJ was asked by Spain to adjudicate because Canada had seized a vessel, invoking necessity, but the ICJ said that it could not look into it because Canada had passed legislation at that time to have a reservation from the ICJ, so the case could not even be heard. The other case relating to the Grand Banks should worry the Minister, as it was about imposing licence fees. Canada invoked necessity; the US responded saying that it would pay the fees of the fishermen and then claim reimbursement from Canada; then Canada amended its laws, which brought in all other aspects, and it was resolved by Canada removing the licence fees. Now, if that is a precedent, it is a worrying one, because I can see that there will be consequences with the EU as a result of this legislation. There will be reciprocal action and the UK will pay for it.
So can the Minister confirm what the Library told me, that there has never been a successful invocation of necessity? Can he tell me if there has ever been a case where any party has invoked necessity for framework legislation? I could not find it, so presumably the Minister will be able to help me.