Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 28. I hope not to repeat too many of the points already made.

The Minister may have seen the letter from Mike Russell, dated 11 March 2019, to which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred. He draws attention to the fact that the Scottish Parliament is not prepared to give its consent to the Trade Bill as presently drafted, which is a matter of some concern. It is not just being obstructive; it is taking a measured position based on Clause 2 of the Scotland Act 2016, to which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also referred. In his letter, Mike Russell said, as the Scottish Government has pointed out, that many of the 24 policy areas currently identified as potentially subject to such regulations are highly relevant in terms of future trade deals, for example food and feed safety, animal health and welfare, agriculture, environmental policy, food labelling, procurement and fisheries management. It is vital that the Scottish Government and Parliament should be able to protect and advance Scotland’s interests and approach in these areas. It is concerning that the Bill as drafted does not mention either consent or consultation. I hope that the Minister will feel able to look at this matter more carefully before we reach Third Reading.

I will make two further points. First, the wording of Amendment 28, adopting the formula in the Scotland Act, uses the word “consent”. I recall long arguments, when we were debating the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, about whether the word “consent” should be included in its various provisions involving interaction with the devolved authorities. The matter was resolved, in connection with the frameworks in relation to trade, by using the word “consult” instead of the word “consent”.

Personally, I would argue that we should adopt the forms in the Scotland Act, but the fact that the word “consult” was used in the amendment to the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred, might be worth some reflection on the Minister’s part. As the noble Lord pointed out, the formula used in Amendment 15 to that Bill, which was an insertion after Clause 4, was:

“Before making regulations under section 2 that contain provision which is within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant devolved authority on that provision”.


That does not go as far as the Scottish Government wish, but at least it is a step in the right direction. As that amendment was moved by a Minister to a closely related Bill—it is part of the general package that we are considering, which is all related to our departure from the EU—I hope that the Minister and his Bill team will give careful consideration as to whether, if the Minister is not prepared to accept the formula in Amendment 28, that formula should be adopted instead. The difference between “consent” and “consult” is quite significant—but consultation, at least, would go a substantial way to meeting the concerns of the Scottish Government in these very important areas.

I shall add one further point. I was in the Grand Committee the other day looking at a statutory instrument that had been made by a UK Minister, and it contained a substantial number of amendments to Scottish legislation made by the Scottish Parliament. I asked why that was being done in a UK SI, rather than being dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. When one looked at the description in the back about consultation, one saw that it was defective, because it did not make it clear that the Scottish Government had been consulted. That was an example of a statutory instrument made by a Minister, on which one would have thought that consultation was essential—indeed, during discussions on the withdrawal Bill I was assured that the Sewel convention would be applied—yet the narrative was incomplete. That may have been simply a technical error, but it illustrates how easy it is to overlook the need for consultation, at least, unless that is on the face of the statute. So I warmly support the points made by the two noble Lords in support of the amendment. If the matter is to be taken away, I hope that the Government will come back on Third Reading with something to address this important issue.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for this amendment, and for his scrutiny of the devolution provisions in the Bill throughout its passage. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his points, which I will address later. Ensuring that the Bill works for the whole of the UK remains a priority for the Government, so I am pleased to inform your Lordships that yesterday the National Assembly for Wales voted in favour of granting consent to the Bill. I ask that this House consider that when weighing the scrutiny of the Bill in the context of the devolution settlements.

The practical purpose of the amendment is that the UK Government should, as a matter of course, seek the agreement of the devolved Administrations prior to legislating in areas of devolved competence. This is not, in principle, an area of contention; rather, the question is whether this should be on the face of the Bill. I reiterate that the UK Government are committed to not normally using the powers in the Bill to legislate in areas of devolved competence without the consent of the relevant devolved Administrations, and certainly not without first consulting them.

We have respected the role of the devolved Administrations through our programme of engagement with them, government amendments in the other place and my renewed commitment today. The Government will maintain this commitment. More broadly, the UK Government have been working productively and collaboratively with the devolved Administrations on a number of fronts. UK government officials are working with devolved Administration officials to revise the common frameworks analysis and take into account progress on framework areas since March 2018. The Government anticipate publishing a further iteration of this analysis shortly.

During our debates on this legislation, there have been many areas of agreement between us and noble Lords on the opposite Bench. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was correct to say in Committee that the use of the powers in devolved areas is,

“more complicated than can be dealt with within the confines of the Trade Bill.”—[Official Report, 23/1/19; col. 724.]

Additionally, the amendment risks setting a precedent whereby competence for policy-making is defined outside the established devolution settlements. It seeks to go further than the convention already recognised in the most recent Scotland and Wales Acts, and could require the court to make a decision on whether or not we were in normal circumstances. I do not believe it is the intention of this House to introduce new legal uncertainty to our statute book.

The Supreme Court made it clear in the judgment on the Miller case that it does not believe it is appropriate for the courts to police the Sewel convention, as it does not lie within the constitutional remit of the judiciary. By inviting this potential judicial scrutiny, the amendment could obstruct the programme of continuity that the Bill seeks to deliver, as the use of the powers could be substantially delayed, to the detriment of the UK as a whole.

I shall now deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, when he mentioned the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. As he knows, I was not involved with that Bill, but I hope that I can help. The amendment to that Bill requires the Secretary of State only to consult. Amendment 28 involves a consent requirement. Those are very different—and this plays into the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. For reasons that we have set out, the consent requirement would create a legal test for the courts, and therefore uncertainty. The powers in the healthcare Bill are different, too. The benefit of the concurrent powers in the Trade Bill is that they allow for the relevant Administrations to legislate themselves where a matter falls under devolved competence, and also allows Ministers of the Crown to make regulations for the whole UK when that makes sense.

As well as the benefits to the devolved Administrations of the concurrent powers, we have made repeated commitments on the Floor of both Houses always to consult the relevant devolved Administration. To take up the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about creating legal uncertainty, although the amendment includes the word “convention” in its title, it uses words that appear designed to turn the convention into a legal test. It uses the words “may not normally”, which appear designed to make that a legal rule justiciable by the courts. This could be a substantial block on the use of the Clause 1 and 2 powers, and could lead to delay through litigation, or, ultimately, to a block on the use of the powers if the court judged the situation to be normal. This could allow a challenger the power to withhold consent to the implementation of part of an agreement, meaning that the UK could not bring it into force until the matter was resolved.

Brexit: Devolved Administrations

Debate between Lord Hope of Craighead and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Thursday 25th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, on the way in which he introduced this important debate, coming as it does between the disappointment of last week in the House of Commons and our engagement next week in the Second Reading of the withdrawal Bill.

As I think everybody knows, the proposals in the Bill as it stands were described by the Scottish Minsters when they first saw them as a power grab. At first hearing, one is inclined to treat an expression of that kind, especially coming from Ministers in a Government that still seem to be planning a second referendum on independence for Scotland, as somewhat overblown and exaggerated. However, on closer examination of the Bill and what it seeks to do to the devolution settlements for Scotland and Wales, which have operated successfully for many years, there is some force in the point that the Scottish Minsters were making.

Of course I must avoid going into matters which we will discuss in detail next week at Second Reading, but there are provisions throughout the Bill, not just in Clause 11, that propose giving powers to Ministers of the Crown to do things by means of regulations in connection with withdrawal which could intrude to a major degree into areas where the devolved Administrations have devolved competence, without the consent—or even seeking the approval—of Scottish and Welsh Ministers.

This is not just a complaint about Henry VIII powers; if I may say so, there is a touch of Oliver Cromwell about this, too. There are powers which, unless controlled in a way that the Bill does not currently provide for, would seriously invade and undermine the way that devolved government is conducted at present in Scotland. They appear to centralise control and decision-making in the UK Government in areas of devolved competence, in a way that would seriously limit the ability of the devolved Administrations to deal with the consequences of withdrawal as they see fit. This may not be the Government’s intention, but as the Bill stands that is how it reads, which was why the Scottish Ministers said what they did.

The Motion asks what the role of the devolved Administrations is to be on withdrawal. To some extent, this is really a matter for the UK Government, who are, after all, the architects of the withdrawal. They should answer that question and we, I am afraid, are at a disadvantage in this House in that the party in government in Scotland has no one here who is in a position to speak for it. But, from such public statements as I have seen, the position of the devolved Administrations is quite easy to understand. It has the support of all parties, particularly in Scotland, as I think was made clear in a debate yesterday. It is fairly straightforward and not really in doubt. These statements show that the Scottish Ministers—I mention them particularly—appreciate that some EU competences cut across elements of both devolved and reserved powers, so we need to find a way, by the creation of appropriate frameworks for matters of common interest, to preserve the single market for goods and services throughout the United Kingdom.

The noble Lord, Lord McInnes, said that this was a matter for mature debate, and I entirely agree. It is also a wonderful opportunity to create something new in place of the void created by the removal of the constraint on EU competences on devolution, which now goes. There is a need to create something new, but UK Ministers must appreciate that those frameworks will have to respect the principles and structure of the enactments which created the devolution settlements in Scotland and Wales, and no doubt in Northern Ireland, too. That, for the Scottish and Welsh Ministers at least, seems to be a red line which must not be crossed. For my part, I see force in the position they are taking.

The settlement for Scotland, which I know best and have worked with for quite some time, has existed since 1998. The basic principle on which that Act was based is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said, that everything which is not reserved is devolved. The reserved areas are set out in Schedule 5 to that Act, which has stood the test of time. There has been no lack of clarity about it. I have been waiting since 1998 for challenges to things to come before the Supreme Court; they have not emerged, because the system works. It is to those reserved areas that the frameworks must direct their attention. The position of the devolved Administrations is quite simple: they seek to be assured that things will be done only with the consent of the Scottish and Welsh Ministers in areas which are devolved.

I have to confess to some sympathy with the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland, to whom he is answerable. They cannot say so, but I sense that the absence of agreement so far about the framework is due not to lack of effort on their part but to policy demands at a higher level in the Cabinet Office. I noticed that the Minister for the Cabinet Office said in debate on Report in the other place last week that he and his team are actively taking forward discussions, with a view to bringing forward amendments in this House. That is very much to be welcomed. However, those discussions must proceed on the basis that there is no point in bringing forward amendments here which do not have the agreement of the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. This is because there will be no prospect of legislative consent being given to this Bill by the Scottish Parliament unless the Scottish Ministers are able to say that it has their agreement, and I believe that the same is true for the Welsh Ministers too.

I do not detect an unwillingness on either side to continue these discussions, but I hope very much that UK Ministers will find their way to constructing frameworks that fully respect the established boundaries between devolved and reserved powers. They need to secure the agreement of the Scottish and Welsh Ministers, and they will, if they respect those boundaries. I look forward to discussing these issues further in our debates in following weeks.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, we are tight on time this morning. I would be grateful if Back-Bench speeches could firmly be concluded as the clock reaches seven minutes. In that way, Front-Bench speeches will have their full allotted time.