Trade Bill

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard]

I thank the noble Lord for correcting my ignorance about the joint ministerial committee already being in existence, although there is obviously no Northern Irish representative on it at present. On the other matter, I still do not understand why it can be sensible in the case of powers that are EU competencies today but which are also devolved. If those powers are repatriated to the UK, it is still necessary to maintain a UK-wide market because, by virtue of being members of the EU market, we have had a UK-wide market within the EU. Therefore, if the entire powers are delegated to the devolved Administrations, we effectively break up our single UK market.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, this is redolent of what we discussed much earlier. The powers that the EU has in the United Kingdom are of different types. Where they go when they are brought back to the UK, as we hope will come to pass—on my present appreciation of what is going on, that is rather a hope—does not just depend on the subject matter. It does not just depend on whether it is agriculture or whatever; it depends on the nature of the power that is devolved. A power that operates only in Scotland would be devolved to Scotland because in the constitutional arrangements there are two restrictions. The reserved powers are one type of restriction, but the other is the geographical restriction. You cannot make laws in Scotland for the rest of the UK. Therefore, if common market policy for the whole of the UK is in question, and that is the power in question, it has to stay with the Parliament in Westminster. But if it is a power related to agriculture, which is restricted only to Scotland, or Northern Ireland or Wales, it is remitted to the legislatures operating there—if a legislator is operating there.

Trade Bill

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

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

[Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)]

My Lords, I offer a footnote in support of noble and learned Lords and the points just made. It should be remembered that Explanatory Notes were for many years produced by officials to brief Ministers on what the Bill meant. They were usually classified—because we used to classify things. Occasionally, when Ministers were having real difficulty explaining a clause to either House, in a kind of noble gesture they would hand over their Explanatory Notes as a way of trying to get their opponents on side. That is the history of this. The idea that, with the slow creep of the Executive’s power, they are becoming a form of legislation of their own is appalling. I can only support very strongly what has already been said.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I suppose I ought to take some part in this discussion. I hope to do so briefly, because I was a strong dissenter, on my own, against the decision in Pepper v Hart. I did not believe it was right to allow extraneous matters to be taken into account in construing an Act of Parliament. That Parliament had used the words, and that some Minister had said something in explanation, should not, to my mind, be used to deal with ambiguity. However, I was overruled then, and I am waiting for that judgment to be overruled in due course. Certainly, that judgment does not include statements not made in Parliament by people who are trying to say what they want to happen in the Act of Parliament, and the Explanatory Notes in no sense come within the judgment in Pepper v Hart. I have no doubt at all that the correct way to restrict a power to impose penalties is by putting the restriction into the Bill.

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Beith, for tabling this amendment and for highlighting what is clearly an area of genuine concern—not just from them, but from the Constitution Committee.

I start by reassuring the House that the Clause 2 power will be used only to implement non-tariff obligations of our continuity trade agreements. For example, we will have to implement procurement obligations in several of our agreements, including the Chile agreement we signed recently. Without the Clause 2 power, we would not be able fully to implement such obligations under these agreements.

I stand before this House not professing to match in any way the legal brains and experience of noble Lords—and, indeed, noble and learned Lords—but I will give the Government’s position. Explanatory Notes are always admissible aids in the construction of an Act. Exceptional circumstances, as in the Pepper and Hart case, are not required. Indeed, I am asked to refer to the House of Lords case R v Montilla and Others in 2004, in which it was said:

“It has become common practice for their Lordships to ask to be shown explanatory notes when issues are raised about the meaning of words used in an enactment”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Yes—but I do not have it. I challenge the Minister: if she is asserting that we are as close as she says we are, would she agree to have further discussions and bring forward an amendment we could both support at Third Reading? I will give her time to seek inspiration. I am not confident that it will come in any palatable form but I make this offer genuinely. It is so important and the principles so germane to what we are doing that we should try to go the extra mile if we can.

Having said that, I think the Government are hiding behind a completely fantasised world in which everything is rolled back, as someone said, to the 19th century with the royal prerogative secure in its place. Somehow, Parliament would be consulted; it would be able to scrutinise and look at the outline approach. The clue is in the language: why outline an approach except to mandate? Why scrutinise, when what we are talking about is post hoc discussion in Committee, reports that will gather dust in libraries but not have any effect, and no chance to influence at a parliamentary level what is being decided.

There are issues of principle at stake—about who has the right to make the decisions that will literally affect the people of this country in a very material way. This is because of the way in which trade has moved away from being simply about goods. It now involves services and a whole range of socioeconomic issues that need to be addressed in the round, at the highest level, by those elected by the people they serve. We have a role, though not as an elected House. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that, in any discussion about priority, of course it has to be the Commons that takes the final decision.

These proposals need to be worked through properly. I will pause for a second to allow the Minister to respond on whether she is prepared to take this up at Third Reading. I will talk until I have to sit down, but I will give way to her if she wishes to make a comment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

While my noble friend is proposing to make a comment, it is highly important that the question of whether something should be discussed at Third Reading is a matter for this House. We have become rather accustomed to attempts on the part of Ministers to decline the opportunity of a Third Reading, but it is for this House to decide. I have no doubt that this particular, very important problem, which involves a delicate balance between the Executive on the one hand and Parliament’s two Houses on the other, should be handled with the utmost care. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, noted, this is an issue about which there is already a bit of difficulty with the detail. We must try to get this right. I have no doubt that, if it is agreed at this stage, the House will allow it to be raised at Third Reading.

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, we have had very fruitful discussions and come quite a long way on this point. All I can say is that I would be happy to discuss it further but I cannot guarantee to come back at Third Reading with any changes. On that basis, the noble Lord will have to decide how he chooses to treat his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The Minister is certainly very brave to take on a former Lord Chancellor in his pomp. I agree with the noble and learned Lord. The House has a very strong view about this and would like to see it back, but I am stuck with the procedural arrangements, as far as I understand them. I cannot amend the amendment before the House at the moment. I assume that the only way to do this would be to vote it through—if the House will agree to its view being tested—and hope that we can bring it back either through ping-pong or in some other way. I give way to the noble and learned Lord to see if he has inspiration of his own.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Inspiration is not my line but there is no doubt at all that it is for the House to decide. The mere fact that the Minister has not been able to agree that the matter should come back does not seem to be a bar to the House deciding whether or not it is right. If the noble Lord tables a new amendment for Third Reading, the clerks will have a view but, ultimately, whether it should be considered is a decision for the House.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am getting inspiration in the form of a book from my noble friend.

Trade Bill

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a short but poignant and moving debate. We have reached back into history and tried to articulate fears and concerns.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

If the noble Lord would allow me, I entirely agree with the difficulties associated with the border, and the need for a soft border, but I am not sure that this amendment achieves that. It would not directly affect the no-deal situation at all. It describes what I regard as a soft border; it is what I would like to see and what the Prime Minister’s deal, with the backstop and so on, is intended to do. But we are now dealing with a different situation. I would love to see a secure, soft border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, but I am not at all sure that the amendment secures that in any way whatever, although I would be glad to have help on that. It would not be as a result of an agreement between the European Union and the UK if there was no deal; no deal is the very opposite of an agreement between the EU and UK.

The other problem is that Ireland’s relationships with countries no longer in the EU would be regulated by the EU. I should be glad of some explanation from the people who know all about this of exactly how the amendment achieves the result I and they wish to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hain]

I was going to make exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just made with far more authority. The European Union negotiates as a bloc and the Brexiteers want to break free of that, for their own reasons.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I would love to vote for this amendment if I thought it would achieve what the noble Lord, the Irish people and indeed all of us want. Unfortunately, it outlaws agreements between the UK and the European Union only in the circumstances narrated. My belief is that if this happens, it will not be as a result of any agreement between the EU and the UK but because there is no agreement between the EU and the UK. This is possibly my blindness, but I do not see how this goes anywhere towards preventing the evil that all of us—I cannot speak for anyone but myself, strictly speaking, but certainly most of us, judging from what I have heard—want to avoid. We want a soft border whatever happens between Northern Ireland and the Republic. I am sure that people in the Republic want that and the Northern Irish people want that—and certainly I and all who love them want that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley]

My noble friend the Minister may know what their intentions are but, as I understand it, in a number of instances—and I think the Swiss are among them—they will use what are effectively not just bilateral agreements with the Swiss but the opportunity to roll over the EU-Swiss agreements into UK-Swiss agreements, and the power here is available for that purpose.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, it is also worth pointing out that, in the event of an accidental no deal—which I hope will not happen—the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, this afternoon would be relevant as well.

Trade Bill

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

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

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I think the whole House—and indeed the country—should be very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for having raised this important matter, the effect of which goes way beyond this Trade Bill. I am very concerned that the assurances that have been given this afternoon by the Minister apply generally to all legislation and not just to this Bill. Perhaps I misunderstood the way that the Minister expressed herself on that: perhaps when she sums up she can once again make it absolutely clear.

Obviously, if it were the case that Explanatory Notes or ministerial Statements under the Pepper v Hart doctrine could be interpreted by the courts as being the equivalent of legislation, two appalling things would happen. One is that the Government would become extremely lazy in their drafting of legislation, because they could say, “Well, we can get it all right in the ministerial Statement in the House”, or something of that sort. The second, even more serious issue would be that a lot of legislation—the Explanatory Notes concerned or the ministerial Statements—would not be subject to analysis, debate and amendment by the two Houses of Parliament. That would be an absolutely disgraceful and tragic end to this particular tendency. So what has happened this afternoon is extremely important.

It is very important that what the Minister has said to the House this afternoon should be brought to the attention of all members of the Government. Once again, I would be very grateful to her if she would just repeat that these statements—I asked her specifically about the Pepper v Hart issue, but it applies to Explanatory Notes as well—apply generally to all legislation and are not tied in any sense to this particular Bill. This just happens, by accident, to be an occasion when we have two very distinguished noble and learned Lords taking part in the debate who spotted this issue, which if it had not been dealt with could have led to very serious consequences.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, as I think the only person in the Chamber who participated in Pepper v Hart, it is right to say that the decision of the majority in that case was that statements made by the mover of an amendment or a provision explaining how that provision was supposed to operate could be referred to in a case of ambiguity in order to resolve the true meaning of the phrase. I did not agree with that for reasons which I set out and with which I will not bother your Lordships now. The decision in Pepper v Hart still stands as the legal decision. I venture to hope that it will not be used very often because it is only in a case of ambiguity that it should be used at all. If you look at the detail of Pepper v Hart, you will see that statements relied upon as being explanatory leave a certain amount to be desired.