Trade Bill

Lord Judge Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 6th March 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Judge]

3A: Clause 2, page 2, line 47, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) may not create or extend criminal offences, impose fees, amend primary legislation other than retained EU law, or create new public bodies.”

[Lord Judge]

My Lords, this amendment has very little to do with trade as such, but it raises a constitutional issue. If you looked at those supporting me on this amendment, you might even think that this is a bit of a geeky constitutional issue. It is not. All three of us are members of the Constitution Committee. We speak on our own behalf but feel it essential to draw the attention of the House to what we believe to be a total misunderstanding of the purposes of Explanatory Notes.

The misunderstanding arises in this way. Under the Bill, Clause 2(5) provides the regulation-making powers that may—forgive me for underlining this—among other things, “make provision”. Then there are paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d); paragraph (d) is about the penalties. We also looked at the Explanatory Notes. I wonder how many of your Lordships have recently looked at the front page of Explanatory Notes any Bill. I will read parts of them:

“These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Department … in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament”.


I do not suppose that a single Member of the House is surprised by that because, constitutionally, it is impeccable. The Explanatory Notes do not form part of whatever legislation may at some future date be enacted by Parliament.

Faced with the wide-ranging regulation-making power, and that assertion in the Explanatory Notes, can we look at the Explanatory Notes themselves? Paragraph 59 —I will not read the first part—in unequivocal terms says that:

“Subsection (5) does not allow for regulations to make or extend criminal offences, charge fees, amend primary legislation other than retained EU law, or create new public bodies”.


The Constitution Committee produced a report on this that expressed some concerns. Noble Lords may remember that in the EU withdrawal Act there was an absence of safeguards, but eventually—through the efforts of Members of this House—safeguards were put into it that prevented the use of delegated powers to impose or increase taxation and fees, to create a relevant criminal offence, or to establish a public authority. That was the step. The Constitution Committee then looked at the provision in relation to subsection (5), to which I have referred. The committee noted that the Explanatory Notes contained the assertion that the Government were not interested in the worrying provision for creating criminal offences and the like, but that this was not stated in the Bill. The committee then pointed out what subsection (5) extends to and recommended that the Government introduce an amendment to include in the Bill the restrictions on the use of the Clause 2 powers set out in the Explanatory Notes. That is what this amendment is designed to achieve.

There is something rather strange about this. You win some, you lose some. If you lose, you come to the House to ask the House to look at it. In a sense, that is what I should do. However, a more important issue has arisen in relation to the response of the Minister, who in effect is saying, “Look, there is nothing to worry about—what are you getting so concerned about? Just read the Explanatory Notes. That is all you need”. Lest you think that I am exaggerating, let me read the words:

“we believe that the explanatory notes to the Bill, which explain the purpose of the provisions contained in the legislation, is the most suitable document to outline the restrictions to the use of the clause 2 power”.

In other words, the issues which were raised as being of concern to the Constitution Committee, and which were referred to in the Explanatory Notes showing that the Government did not wish to have the powers that would have been troublesome, were simply to be found by looking at the Explanatory Notes. That is a troublesome approach to these issues. As I am aware, it is new: “Look at what the regulations do not contain and you’ll find that in the Explanatory Notes”. It seems a rather strange way of going about legislation.

The letter from the Minister was followed by a reference to an observation by a former Law Lord—who sadly is no longer with us, the highly respected Lord Steyn—based on a decision of the House of Lords called Pepper v Hart in which it is said that he allowed for the possibility of looking at Explanatory Notes in exceptional circumstances. I would argue that that was not as an aid to construction but in effect to say, “If the Executive have said this, you can draw that to our attention while we resolve the issue”.

Pepper v Hart is a troublesome case. Perhaps I may summarise what it is meant to mean in the following way—hopelessly inadequately in view of the presence of some noble and learned Lords here. It means that you can look at what has gone on in the House if the legislation itself is unintelligible. Legislation should not be unintelligible; it should be intelligible. At this stage when we are looking at this legislation, if it is not, we should make it so.

On how far Lord Steyn went about allowing for examination of Explanatory Notes, if it offered a diminution of the principle that Explanatory Notes are not, never were meant to and never should be treated as a legislative provision, I say with great respect to Lord Steyn that I think he got it wrong. I do not believe that that was what he was saying, but if he did it is wrong. We surely must not countenance the arrival of a pernicious new form of legislation, the Explanatory Note. We have enough trouble with guidance. Guidance is a seriously problematic source; it sort of hands over power to the Executive, but at least when we do that we have listened to the debate, have decided that that is the right way to approach the problem and have legislated accordingly. In relation to Explanatory Notes, there has never been a debate; there has never been anything. This comes from the department. The department tells us what the department thinks it wants. It cannot possibly be a guide to what we in this House or in the other place decide that the legislation should be. But we will now look at the department’s own Explanatory Notes to decide whether a provision which is an important safeguard against regulations creating criminal offences, imposing fees, amending primary legislation or creating new public bodies should be found. It is a constitutional absurdity. I beg to move.

[Lord Garnier]

My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, thought that his thinking was inadequate compared to that of Lord Steyn, it is the only inadequate thing that he just said. I rise briefly to encourage him in his arguments and to encourage the Government to understand that it is not only on the Cross Benches and on the Liberal Democrat Benches that the concerns that he has expressed can be found.

I want to look at Clause 2 through the lens of Amendment 3A, because it gives both United Kingdom Ministers and devolved Administration Ministers the power to make regulations that make provision among other things to modify primary legislation and impose penalties, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointed out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

I am unable to make that commitment.

[Lord Judge]

May I respectfully ask what, in that case, would be the purpose of the meeting with the Minister to which she referred?

[Baroness Fairhead]

My understanding is that we have a clear legal position which is strongly believed, and the meeting would be to see whether we can reach a mutual agreement.

[Lord Judge]

If we can reach a mutual agreement on it, it is at least possible that the Government may decide to amend their Bill.

[Baroness Fairhead]

There will be other opportunities; perhaps we could have a meeting before the second day on Report.

[Lord Judge]

Provided it is understood that the resolution of this issue will abide or at least wait for a meeting between those of us who wish to meet the Minister—I would certainly be one of them—and those whom the Minister wishes to meet, that is fine. But I cannot leave the House in the position that we will now leave this for ever, and if the Minister deigns to do us the kindness of giving us what we want, we will have it. We have to know exactly where the Government stand on this. I know the argument, but where do we stand procedurally in the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I agree with that position.

[Lord Judge]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I think that calling for a Division at 5.24 pm when we have so many other things to deal with might not have been very popular, although I suspect we would have won. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, for enlightening me as to where Explanatory Notes come from.

I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. I will leave it at this: the Executive accept that these powers should not be given. There should be no difficulty whatever in putting them into legislation, rather than leaving them in an Explanatory Note. Although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick has sought—and graciously been given—an assurance of the Minister’s position, I do not think that is enough. For the time being, at any rate, I shall not press this amendment.

Amendment 3A withdrawn.

Trade Bill

Lord Judge Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fairhead]

I can confirm that the Government do not intend to use Pepper v Hart in the way that the noble Lord suggested we might. I hope that is clear to noble, and noble and learned, Lords.

I turn now to Amendment 5 and the considerations behind it. The power in Clause 2 cannot be exercised to create or extend criminal offences, impose fees, amend primary legislation—other than retained EU law—or create new public bodies. This is based on long-standing principles about the statutory construction of powers and on well-established legislative presumptions. These make it clear that certain things cannot be done by secondary legislation, unless they are expressly provided for in the enabling Act.

However, on the point about criminal offences, I am grateful for the very constructive discussions with noble Lords. These have led the Government to bring forward an amendment that would improve this Bill in a way that does not cast doubt on other powers in existing enactments. The Government’s amendment is simple but, we believe, effective. It inserts the word “civil” into Clause 2(5)(d) so the text means that this power to implement continuity trade agreements may be used only to make provisions for civil penalties for failing to comply with the regulations. The explicit reference to civil penalties, without mention of criminal offences, makes it clear that the power may not be used to make or extend criminal offences. I trust that these words, alongside the government amendment, will provide reassurance to your Lordships.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I first thank the Minister for her positive approach to the issues we raised in debate. In passing, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for helping us to sort ourselves out. The statement in the House today follows the exact terms of a letter that the Minister kindly wrote to me on 11 March. I welcome it. In the circumstances I just want to highlight why we brought this amendment before the House last time. It was to expose two constitutional heresies. The first was that Explanatory Notes may be used for the purposes of construing legislation. We thought that was a heresy. The Government had sent us a letter which told us that this was what they were going to be used for. The second heresy—which was in the same letter—was that Pepper v Hart could be relied on to clarify unclear drafting. The whole point of legislation is that it should be clear. Pepper v Hart is a last resort when this House or the other place has made a mess of the legislation.

I do not think it is necessary, or would be helpful to the House, to repeat what the Minister said. She said that she was referring to the letter. She lifted what she said to the House directly from the letter. With that, I think that for all times in the future—at any rate for the next considerable number of years—we can work on the basis that those two constitutional heresies shall be, and have been, consigned to the dustbin of constitutional oblivion. Can we please forget about it from now on?

I want to make a separate point to the Minister. I am afraid that events moved rather fast and I missed the boat on this. If I had thought about it sooner I would have had an amendment in to Clause 2(5) to exclude the words “among other things”. The fact that I missed the bus does not mean that I may not come on it if it comes into fresh or different legislation. If it is being thought of as a possibility for fresh or new legislation, I urge the Minister to make all her colleagues understand the way the Government approached the Healthcare—I cannot remember which of the many words followed that word—Act that we enacted last night omitted the words “for example”. Those words give far too wide a power to the Minister. I shall come back to “among other things” if the phrase ever returns, so forgive me. However, in view of the assurances from the Minister, the clarity of her observations to the House today and the amendment that would meet the concerns we advanced in relation to statutory construction, so far as I am concerned I do not propose to move my amendment.