Just attended an online Covid briefing with Sir Patrick Vallance, Chris Whitty &c. Only MPs and peers - almost 450 of us. Questions were uniformly concise, courteous, pertinent, well-informed and non-political: better on each count than we usually hear at press conferences. /1
Lots of fair challenges, esp on messaging. How can omicron be "doubling daily" when figures look stable? Publish staff absence rates, given it's a crucial issue? Map vaxed/non-vaxed hospital cases against vaxed/non-vaxed numbers in each age cohort, to make the case for vax? /2
Parliamentarians are right to push these points on behalf of an engaged and intelligent public - the scientists benefit, even when they have answers, and MPs can use what they learn to inform constituents and hold government effectively to account. /3
The interplay between experts and our elected representatives (some impressive peers too) was democracy at work. Everyone there learned from it. I wish the public could have watched (but perhaps some politicians might then have felt the need to be more "political"). /4
It's a view rarely expressed, except in the period just after an MP has been attacked or killed while serving the public - but for the most part and on tonight's showing we remain very fortunate in the quality of our elected representatives. /5
Having attended these events both irl and virtually, I would add, finally, that the latter was on every measure preferable. I hope both Houses of Parliament continue to run with the advances of the past two years: the tech is good, and only going to get better. /6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
CHIS = covert human intelligence source legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/…: put simply, an agent who for whatever reason (personal, financial, even patriotic) agrees to help the police, MI5 or others spy on suspected criminals. They are authorised under #RIPAlegislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/… /2
CHIS play a vital role in disrupting terrorism and organised crime. Over the past year, CHIS operations by @metpoliceuk alone are claimed to have led to 3500 arrests, recovery of 100 firearms and 400 other weapons, seizure of 400 kg of Class A drugs, and £2.5m cash. /3
It may have solved their political problems, at least in the Commons, but does not solve their legal ones. /2
The threat unilaterally to rip up important parts of the Withdrawal Agreement continues at least arguably to infringe the duty in article 5 WA to “refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this agreement”. /3
The fullest defence yet of #InternalMarketBill (contingent powers only; Brandon Lewis wrong) was given by Lord Keen at the start of today's @LordsEUCom Justice meeting. Video here, parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e2… transcript in a few days. A court commitment stopped me attending, sadly.
He took the same line as at today's PNQ hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2020-09-…, but had more time to set it out. In short #IMBill gives UK powers that may be needed to respond to a fundamental breach by EU of the WA or to exercise our rights under Art 16 of the NI Protocol or Art 62 VCLT.
Those conditions are not specified in the Bill (which is far broader than Keen's explanation could justify), and there was no evidence that HMG's fears are realistic or that this is a wise negotiating strategy. But intellectually, an improvement on previous defences (a low bar).
Lord Keen has defended the Government's position, and his own. His main point was that the Government has not asserted the power to depart unilaterally from a recently-agreed Treaty, just invited Parliament to consider the matter. Over to us! /1
So would it be OK for Parliament to pass a law allowing specific international commitments, recently accepted and passed into law, to be simply disregarded? Lord Keen (wisely perhaps) did not address the moral/reputational aspects of this, but pointed to a "precedent". /2
Not the Finance Act 2013, which may now have been quietly forgotten
The Ministerial Code still mandates compliance with international law, despite a change to its wording, as the Court of Appeal confirmed in 2018: amp.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/0…
The (concise) judgment of the Court of Appeal is here bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/…. It records these reassuring words from Lord Faulks, the ex-Justice Minister now heading the Commission into judicial review.
The attempt to change the meaning of the guidelines was strongly fought by the late lamented Sir Paul Jenkins, predecessor as Treasury Solicitor of Jonathan Jones who resigned this morning.
Astonishing news. I know Jonathan Jones @PermSecGLD well: he is a lower-key character than his predecessor, but his resignation speaks volumes about the independence bred into all decent barristers. /1
It may not be fanciful to derive from this RT of @davidallengreen another recent sign of his disenchantment: it refers to the ill-judged and derogatory comment by @ukhomeoffice (which @PermSecGLD once proudly served) about "activist lawyers".
Principled resignations by senior government lawyers are rare: but remember Elizabeth Wilmhurst en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth…, who stepped down in 2003 over the reversal of her advice on the illegality of the Iraq War /3