European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Duke of Montrose Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, Clause 4 contains many ambiguities, some of which have been helpfully pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. The clause domesticates all directly effective treaty provisions whether or not they will be capable of meaningful application following exit. Several problems arise from that which the Government are aware of and say they will address. However, I am not entirely comfortable with the sort of formula the helpful Solicitor-General brought to the committee when he came to see us. He said:

“‘The Government will consider how these rights can be given effect to in the context of our exit from the EU on a case-by-case basis ahead of exit day’”.


There is an awful lot of work to be done before exit day and I look forward to receiving this case-by-case analysis at some point.

The Constitution Committee suggested amendments to deal with some of the ambiguities, but it could not deal with all of them for the reason we set out in paragraph 37. Reciprocal rights are,

“inextricably linked to the legal relationship between the UK and the EU post-exit. The full impact of Brexit upon reciprocal rights will not be known until the UK’s future relationship with the EU is determined. This highlights a broader issue that the uncertain environment in which the Bill is being considered makes it difficult fully to assess its likely consequences, including its constitutional implications, at the time of its passage”.

That is putting it gently, but that is the difficult situation in which we are operating.

I turn specifically to the effect of Amendment 26. I remain puzzled by not just the ambiguity but the conflicting language used in the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, elucidated this at the start of this short debate by citing the phrase,

“not of a kind recognised by the European Court or any court or tribunal in the UK in a case decided before exit day”.

The committee responded by saying:

“It is unclear whether this means that there must be a judgment on the specific provision of the particular directive, holding that it has direct effect, or whether it simply requires that the provision in question satisfies the criteria that would be applied if the matter were to be judicially considered”.


That is a pretty hypothetical basis on which to defend a right. We said:

“The language of clause 4 supports the latter interpretation, but the explanatory notes appear to endorse the former”.


A great deal of paper is being shuffled around at the moment because it may be that the ambiguity is being resolved as I speak, although I suspect that what is really being looked at is how far we can get tonight in the course of these proceedings. However, we need some help in getting the Government’s view on this, but that might not be sufficient because we also need to ensure that the Bill is tightened up in this respect.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

My Lords, we have spent a lot of time today trying to define what is a snapshot and what could give clarity in the transposition of the legislation. We are now poking around as to where the fuzzy edges are, and some of this is very much more than just fuzzy edges. In fact, it is very good that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, outlined areas that this measure would solidify and imply. My worry about Amendment 28 concerns subsection (3), which deals with law that,

“incorrectly or incompletely gives effect”.

It is hard to say what that will apply to. It is obviously drawn up that way because we do not know what it will apply to. In some ways, it seems we are now trying to include laws in the snapshot when we do not know what they are or what they might be.

My main gripe is that the amendment says that,

“a Minister of the Crown must make regulations for the purpose”.

This is one of the things for which we might say that a Minister of the Crown “may” make regulations, because we wish to leave some power to the UK Government to intervene to construct the type of law we would like to see.

[Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Con)]

My Lords, in welcoming Amendment 28 I note that it supplements Clause 4 in a way that can be considered constructive. Among other things, it would strengthen the position of archaeology and cultural heritage, which are often associated with environmental issues. A new policy statement has been promised, but that would surely be weaker than a statutory approach, which this amendment follows. It takes a more comprehensive approach in what I consider to be a constructive way.

As drafted, the Bill does not fully transpose the environmental principles set out in the European Communities Act 1972 into United Kingdom law. The amendment would therefore impose a duty to make regulations to remedy this deficiency. It is fair to say that we do not want our rich body of archaeological remains to be put at risk by deficiencies that might remain in the legislation following our withdrawal from the European Union. The amendment is supported by the Council for British Archaeology and the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. It offers an important safeguard and I am very happy to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, the reason I dare to intervene at all is that I have always had a great interest in conservation, as a farmer, and in looking after nature reserves and various such things. Will the Minister make something clear? It seems to me that the habitats directive and the water directives are already part of our law; I do not quite see how they would fall through in the absence of some of these clauses, but we do want to tighten up the legislation.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by affirming that we on these Benches—or what is left of us—support the thrust of Amendments 26 and 28, which deal with significant issues raised in Clause 4. As the Constitution Committee avers, as drafted,

“Clause 4 will … domesticate all directly effective treaty provisions, whether or not they will be capable of meaningful application”.


What is the point of such an outcome? What is the point of creating a situation under which in the case of domesticated provisions which have,

“no practical application, or makes provision for reciprocal arrangements or rights which no longer exist or are no longer appropriate once the UK has left the EU, statutory instruments can be brought forward to repeal or amend the provisions”?

More substantively, what is the Government’s response to the damning conclusions of the committee in paragraphs 37 and 38 of its report? These describe the implications of the Bill for reciprocal rights as “uncertain” and state:

“The full impact of Brexit on reciprocal rights will not be known until the UK’s future relationship with the EU is determined”.


What is the Government’s position on this issue?

Given the concerns of the committee, what, if any, estimate have the Government made of the consequences of the Bill’s impact in this area, and what is their response to the committee’s observation that:

“The ambiguities in the interpretation and effect of clause 4 will inevitably cause legal uncertainty about a fundamental provision of the Bill. This will undermine one of the Government’s main objectives in bringing forward this Bill”?


The committee concludes its observations on this part of the Bill by stating starkly:

“The ambiguities need to be resolved”.


Does the Minister agree that there are ambiguities? If so, how and when will the Government address the problem?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Duke of Montrose Excerpts

Committee: 11th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. In a sense, that puts us in an even more difficult position. Surely, one idea was that by taking back control we would be able to legislate and use our own courts. We will have 21 months in which we do what the European Union requests without having a say. What are the Government doing to ensure we have at least some sort of seat at the table?

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

I had a son who worked in the European court. As far as I understand it, if an issue comes up which is relevant to the United Kingdom, it is unlikely that a United Kingdom judge would be part of the panel asked to rule on it.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

There will be no United Kingdom judge: when we are not members of the European Union, we will not be entitled to have a judge at the European Court of Justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is absolutely right, I am afraid.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Duke of Montrose Excerpts

Report: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Lords Chamber

It is important in this unique situation, where European Union law is being repatriated, that we remember that there are two aspects to it. It is important that the devolution settlement is respected; my understanding of what the Government propose is that, with the exception of those where they seek a common framework, powers will automatically flow back to Cardiff, to Belfast, I hope, and to Edinburgh, where they would fall under areas which are not otherwise reserved.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

My Lords, there is a provision in Section 29 of the Scotland Act that covers the thing that worries the noble and learned Lord. Section 29(2)(a) provides that it is outside the competence of the Scottish Government to apply,

“part of the law of a country or territory other than Scotland, or confer or remove functions exercisable otherwise than in or as regards Scotland”.

So this raises a great problem in the area he is talking about.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, if an Act of Parliament gives the Scottish Parliament power to say no and refuse its consent, what I am asking is whether that affects what might happen in other parts of the United Kingdom, so that you would not be able to get the common UK framework which people might otherwise think is necessary and desirable to be able to sustain a single market within these islands. At the moment, we have to some extent a form of competence at a different level—the European level—which is being brought back down to the United Kingdom. I ask these questions because it possibly means that there is a difference between the procedure which has been used if you wish to modify Schedule 5 or change Schedule 4 and one where we are returning the laws which hitherto have been subject to the European Union.

The amendments in my name, which I know are supported by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, are Amendment 89DAF in respect of Scotland, Amendment 89DAJ in respect of Wales and Amendment 89 DAK in respect of Northern Ireland. These amendments would, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, indicated, change the sunset—although it is not really a sunset in this respect—overall from seven years to five years, and they do that by changing the period during which the frameworks must be established from five years to three years. I did not seek to change the two-year period during which these orders have to be made, because that is consistent with other provisions in the Bill.

If my understanding of the situation is correct, if an order is not made that would identify the area for a framework and freeze, the power would automatically flow back to, let us say in this case, Edinburgh. Is it therefore to be expected that all these orders will be made, identifying the areas for freezing to establish common frameworks by the time we leave the European Union? Otherwise, it might appear that, within a period of days, weeks or months between our leaving the European Union and the order being made, there could be divergence between the different parts of the United Kingdom. After the order is made, I suggest that there should be a three-year period for the frameworks to be established rather than a five-year period.

I welcome the fact that time limits have been put in at all—that was a step forward, and the Government have obviously been listening on that. But I have not heard why it should be five years rather than three. That figure may have been plucked out of the air. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is not in his place, but he did have an amendment in Committee in which five was suggested. It may be that that commended itself to the Government because it came from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I would like to hear a rationale as to why five years is to be preferred to three. The noble and learned Lord said that they had agreement from the Welsh Government on this. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s views on whether the Welsh Government thought that a shorter period of time would be ideal but they were prepared to accept this.

No one disputes the amount of work to be done but we are potentially in a Parkinson’s law situation, where work expands to fill the time available for its completion. If we say five years, it could take up to five years; if we say three years, it would focus the mind and we could possibly do it in three. That is not least because we are dealing with dynamic issues, and if we are to freeze retained EU law in areas where there might be need to update the law—I assume that in these circumstances we would seek to do so by agreement—three years would allow progress to be made faster.

Also in this group is Amendment 90, which again provides a sunset. However, I think it is superseded by what we are debating and so I will not seek to press it. But it is important that the Government give us a rationale as to why they have chosen this period of time.

On a very specific point, Amendment 92AD—on page 19 of the Marshalled List—talks about the reporting that is to be made by Ministers to Parliament:

“After the end of each reporting period, a Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a report which … (b) explains how principles … (i) agreed between Her Majesty’s Government and any of the appropriate authorities, and (ii) relating to implementing any arrangements which are to replace any relevant powers or retained EU law restrictions, have been taken into account”.

I rather suspect that these are the principles that were agreed at the Joint Ministerial Committee back in October or November, which have certainly been discussed before. However, it is slightly odd to have reference to “principles” which, as far as I can see, will not actually appear in the Bill. Because we have debated this often enough, we perhaps know what the principles are, or at least know where they can be found, but to anyone coming to this fresh it would not necessarily indicate where these principles are. Will the Minister confirm that these are the principles that are being referred to—the ones agreed at the Joint Ministerial Committee—and explain whether there is any reason that they should not be added as an annexe to the Bill?

In conclusion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, quoted a letter from the First Minister, which was very measured in its terms—slightly more measured than her writings in last week’s Sunday Herald, in which she said that the Tories would “completely demolish” Scottish devolution. I immediately thought of the many debates we had during the passage of the Scotland Act 2016, in which the Conservative Government extended devolution to cover almost all of income tax and a substantial amount of social security. This could be a very cunning plan, if they assume that the Scottish Government will—I was going to say “screw it up”, but I am not sure whether that is parliamentary—act in such a way that it would end devolution, but I do not think that that was the plan. This Government have shown a very strong commitment—and I say this from the opposition Benches—through the number of things that they have devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Take one example from the 24:

“EU regulations on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP); the placing on the market and use of biocidal products (e.g. rodenticides); the export and import of hazardous chemicals; the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH); and plant protection products (e.g. pesticides)”.


I cannot honestly believe that trying to establish a common framework on that somehow undermines devolution, given that the Government transferred, almost entirely, income tax to the Scottish Parliament. It is a degree of hype that does not serve the debate well.

I rather hope that, as we go forward, we can recognise that what we are trying to do is seek a position so that, when we are no longer part of the European Union, we can in many important areas where it is thought necessary—indeed, the Scottish Government have accepted that in some areas it is necessary—establish a common framework throughout the United Kingdom. There will be further arguments as to the content of these frameworks, but for the moment we need to identify what they are. I would welcome a response to the points that I have made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, with so many lawyers speaking this evening, it is with some temerity that I stand to add a few comments. I emphasise that there will not be many.

We have an inelegant, lop-sided form of devolution. I will not spend my time analysing the amendments in detail because the lawyers have done that much better than I possibly could, but I will talk about the process. We would not design devolution like this now and I believe these amendments show how poorly designed our devolution is. Until now it has relied on the overarching EU presence to smooth things over—to take the politics out of the politics—and I think it will be difficult in the future.

The amendments are not ideal. Like my noble friend Lord Steel, I would prefer that Clause 11 had not been there but this is an acceptable compromise. The important thing from my perspective is that it is acceptable to the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly. As my noble friend Lord Thomas said, the amendments are complex and tortuous. I was relieved to find that he did not understand one particular phrase. I had been too timid to ask what it meant. My concern is that the Government’s attitude towards this has hampered progress. It has taken far longer to reach agreement than it should have done and I believe the grudging attitude of the Government has meant that they have backed themselves into a corner. I recognise the tremendous efforts that have been made in recent days and weeks to deal with this. Nevertheless, while I might be a passionate devolutionist I do not believe that it is honest or straightforward to try to shoe-horn into this Bill an expansion of devolution. I believe that that is the Scottish Government’s current position and I feel that it is necessary to accept these amendments, in the current situation, in order to be straightforward with the people of Wales and Scotland. This is about trying to represent devolution in the situation as it is at the moment. If we are to expand devolution, we need a full debate about it in the future.

I believe that it will be politically tricky in the future to manage devolution. Some very sharp edges are revealed in these amendments between the powers of the UK Government and the devolved Governments. For that reason, my final point is that I would very much like to see the position of the JMC properly and fully established. It should not be the occasional add-on at the Government’s convenience which it currently is.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, perhaps I may come in here to congratulate the Minister on how far the Government have got in solving this rather knotty problem. As I go with this, I feel that I should re-emphasise my authority for speaking as a Scot and as a nationalist, rather as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern did. Mine is founded rather more in history than in current experience, in that members of my family have fought and died for Scottish independence on a number of occasions. They were also responsible for sitting on the whole negotiation for the Acts of Union.

I am not sure whether I can fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, said about all measures going immediately to Scotland. The provision that I tried to raise when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was speaking is that what is devolved was devolved under Schedule 5, but Schedule 5 was subject to the earlier parts of the Act. In attempting to modify Section 29, we are in really novel territory because that provision has remained as it was put in the Act in 1998. This is the first time that we have had to take a hatchet to it but the remaining subsection says that the Scottish Parliament will exceed its powers if it tries to legislate for any provision which,

“would form part of the law of a country or territory other than Scotland”.

A great many of the powers that are coming back affect all parts of the United Kingdom and that element has to be sorted out.

It is very good to hear from the Minister how the agreement on dealing with the powers from Brussels has been achieved. However, it sounds—or rather, it sounded at the start—as if the Scottish Government had the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood: that all law should immediately be devolved to them. This is clearly not going to do. Accompanying a letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was a table, which explained the Government’s view at that point on sorting out what was, I think, a total of 167 measures that they had identified in EU legislation as needing to be addressed. Of these, at that point they had no problem with 12 that needed to be reserved and 49 that could be immediately handed over. Can the Minister give us an update on the Government’s view on how many of these laws could immediately be handed over now, as I am sure that they and such things have been subject to negotiation over the Easter period? At the same time, however, we would like to know what legislative process will be put in place to achieve the handing over to the devolved Parliament and Assemblies and how long it is likely to take for those measures.

One or two noble Lords have quoted from the letter of 26 April from the First Minister of Scotland. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has provided a very good outline of how Section 30 will work. I have no doubt that many of us have much to learn about that. I was slightly worried about the First Minister’s second suggestion in her letter, when she talks about,

“the existing constitutional arrangement where changes to devolved competence are to be made under Section 30 … by Order in Council subject to the approval of both the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament”.

I was led to wonder whether an Order in Council, if passed by Her Majesty, was actually subject to approval by the Scottish Parliament at that stage, whereas I think that the amendments that are now in place are suggesting that approval would be sought and, with any luck, granted before the application was made for the order. If the Scottish Parliament were being offered the chance to turn down such a thing as an Order in Council that had already been made, a constitutional change in this order would need more than a memorandum of understanding, which is how the present system works.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I am comforted by the fact that all of the learned noble Lords who have contributed have acknowledged that this is an extremely complicated situation, one in which there are clearly differences of views. Indeed, the submission that we have had from the Law Society of Scotland took a similar view. However, I also recognise that it is just as well that it is complicated because Clause 11, in its initial format, was brutally simple and wrong. We therefore have got to a position where, after some time, we are now able to debate something that acknowledges the difficulties that Clause 11 originally contained.

Everybody has genuinely welcomed—and should rightly welcome—the progress that has been made, the spirit with which it has been made and the work that has been done to get to a situation which genuinely acknowledges that what we are trying to do is find a decision-making process that carries everybody with us, recognises legitimate interests, but is always left with the elephant in the room, which is, “Where does the buck stop?” Clearly, the buck ultimately stops with the UK because we are a United Kingdom. That, of course, is not entirely acceptable to people who do not believe in the United Kingdom and do not wish it to continue.

It is fair to say that Mike Russell in particular has, on more than one occasion, acknowledged constructive progress and engagement. Indeed, many of us have the view that, left to his own devices, the Scottish Government might have accepted where we are today. The First Minister clearly has not. She has not only sent a letter here to the Lord Speaker, but made fairly—shall we say—lively representations in the Scottish media as to what she thinks is intended. The trouble is that what she said might be legitimately attached to Clause 11 as it was, but it does not legitimately attach to where we are today. That is why the sentiment of this House—and I suspect the sentiment of those people in Scotland who think about it—is that the Scottish Government should be very careful that they do not over-push their position, because Scotland has voted to be in the United Kingdom, is part of the United Kingdom, and recognises that there are shared interests, where we will need to make decisions together. The issue is: how do we find a process that has the trust and confidence and the interests of everybody that can be taken on board?

We might eventually have to talk about a federal constitution; the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was the only speaker to mention quasi-federalism. We are stumbling towards a federal United Kingdom and we may need to acknowledge that, because federalism would provide a legal framework in which the powers were clearly stated in law and disputes were resolved through a constitutional court.