European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard continued) & Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I think we have got here earlier than some other noble Lords anticipated, which is why I may be speaking a bit slowly. They still have not arrived, so I give in—no, it is all right. Help is arriving at this moment. Amendment 12 stands in my name as well as those of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I shall also speak to Amendment 15, which is also in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.

Clause 21 is, as one of our committees describes it, a major clause adding significant new provision for Ministers to make regulations to implement the withdrawal agreement’s Irish/Northern Irish protocol, including

“any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament,”

including modifying the 2018 Act. Unsurprisingly, our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its report of 9 January, therefore describes this provision as,

“a most potent form of Henry VIII clause, allowing regulations to modify their parent Act in addition to creating a new legal regime that would otherwise require,”

an Act of Parliament. Amendment 12 would remove the ability in the current Bill to amend the 2018 EU withdrawal Act by statutory instrument in connection with the protocol. Amendment 15 would place a series of limitations on the regulation-making powers allowed for in this clause.

First, Amendment 12 would, as I say, remove the ability to amend the 2018 Act. It is both unusual and unexplained as to why the Government want to give themselves a power, with only the most cursory scrutiny, to amend primary legislation. I know certain newspapers took umbrage this morning at my warnings to the Government yesterday against ramming through legislation even if it contains deficiencies, and of them being unwilling to listen to reason. But here we appear to have a provision almost certainly written as a failsafe; I think the Government know that they will almost certainly have got things wrong. This is not a way to make good law. We do not like it and it should come out.

Amendment 15 is needed as, for unexplained reasons, there are no restrictions on the scope of the Henry VIII powers in respect of implementing the Northern Ireland protocol. That is in contrast to all the other Henry VIII powers in the 2018 Act and elsewhere in this very Bill—for example, in Clause 18. Amendment 15 would add the same restrictions as are in the 2018 Act, and indeed elsewhere in the Bill, on making relevant new criminal offences, setting up public bodies or imposing fees and taxation by secondary legislation. Given what is elsewhere in the Bill and in the earlier Act, I hope that the Government will accept these changes.

Crucially, Amendment 15 would also ensure that neither the Human Rights Act nor the devolution Acts could be amended or repealed by secondary legislation. It is probably the view of the whole House that changes to fundamental rights should be made only by Parliament through primary legislation, not by Ministers through secondary legislation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, whom I am glad to see in his place, said yesterday, it would be,

“ a terrible precedent … if we altered the devolution legislation other than by primary legislation”.—[Official Report, 13/1/20; col. 532.]

Unsurprisingly, the Welsh Government particularly support proposed new paragraph (f) in Amendment 15, with its restriction to prevent UK Ministers using such powers as are allowed in this clause to amend the statutes that embed the devolution settlements. There is already a perfectly viable way of amending the Welsh statutes without primary legislation, where the National Assembly itself agrees to the change: through a Section 109 Order in Council.

Why have the Government written themselves these powers in Clause 21? Should the Government refuse to accept Amendment 15, particularly its proposed new paragraph (f), they will by that refusal feed the suspicion that they want this power to make changes to devolution settlements even where the National Assembly and the Welsh Government are opposed to such changes. I therefore trust that the Minister will accept this amendment and, today, rule out any chance of the Government using these powers to amend the Government of Wales Act without the consent of the National Assembly. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 12, to which my name is attached. This is quite different from most of the other amendments which have come before the Committee. It is in no sense political; it is a matter of process, not politics. Its significance lies only in the clause’s defiance of our normal parliamentary processes and the danger of establishing a very unfortunate precedent. There are two consequences: first, this modest improvement cannot be characterised as holding the Bill up; and, secondly, it cannot be said to be a wrecking amendment because it is nothing of the sort.

I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is no longer in his place—he was there just a few moments ago—because I listened carefully to his speech yesterday and I was struck by a point he made which then seemed to be followed by a number of noble Lords, albeit a small minority. I refer to the point he made about the Salisbury-Addison convention, which was agreed between the leader of a small group of Labour Government Peers and a large group of hereditary Conservative Opposition Peers after the 1945 election. The name is significant because it was a deal made between two individuals appropriate to those precise circumstances. It has limited relevance now, as was so comprehensively analysed by the 2006 Joint Committee on Conventions, on which I served.

That committee reiterated:

“In the House of Lords: A manifesto Bill is accorded a Second Reading; A manifesto Bill is not subject to ‘wrecking amendments’ which change the Government’s manifesto intention as proposed in the bill; and A manifesto Bill is passed and sent (or returned) to the House of Commons, so that they have the opportunity, in reasonable time, to consider the Bill or any amendments the Lords may wish to propose.”


In passing, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the then Leader of the Opposition, was on record as stating that the doctrine needed to be re-examined:

“Election promises can be vague and easily manipulated by governments, who reserve the right to jettison manifesto promises if things change. If governments can have the right, why cannot Parliaments too have a say on circumstances as they change?”—[Official Report, 24/1/01; col. 294.]


Similarly, the Joint Committee took a great deal of evidence on the issue of secondary legislation. It was told by all parties that the Salisbury-Addison agreement did not apply. In relation to this clause and this protocol, we therefore have to conclude that Salisbury-Addison is totally irrelevant.

This is not a wrecking amendment. The provision was not spelt out in the manifesto, and in any case secondary legislation was specifically excluded from the convention—and that was just a bilateral agreement excluding other parties and the Cross-Benchers and was overtaken by events precisely as Lord Strathclyde pointed out.

I emphasise these points for two reasons. First, yesterday a few noble Lords seemed to be dangerously near to suggesting that your Lordships’ House should forgo its proper constitutional role in scrutinising this Bill, not least in relation to its significance in terms of the relationship between the Executive and Parliament. Indeed, one or two noble Lords seemed to be on the verge of bullying us with threats of reform to this House. As a very long-term advocate of reform, I say, “Bring it on”. The 2012 reform Bill, with which I was much involved, received a massive majority of 338 in the Commons with all parties giving it majority support—so it is over to you, Mr Cummings. Indeed, I would repeat Mr Clint Eastwood’s remark: “Go ahead, punk, make my day.”

Secondly, we must distinguish between on the one hand this amendment and the few others which seek to instil proper parliamentary process, avoiding precedents which future Governments could exploit, with more substantial political changes to the Bill on the other.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard continued) & Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Thursday 16th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

In moving Amendment 46 I will speak to the other amendments in the group, which essentially have the same effect. Under the Bill there will be no extra sifting procedure of the sort that we established in the 2018 Act, which was able to act as a further check on the Brexit statutory instruments that were laid using the negative procedure. Quite a large number of instruments were recommended for upgrade to the affirmative procedure, and the process helped to identify a variety of drafting errors that could otherwise have left the statute book inoperable in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Our thoughtful and highly experienced Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended a sifting mechanism for this Bill along the lines of the 2018 Act. It would be able to recommend an upgrade from the negative to the affirmative procedure where the regulations were seen to be significant. That recommendation has been endorsed by our Constitution Committee, given the importance and potential breadth of powers in the Bill. It has also recommended that the sifting mechanism should be added as part of parliamentary scrutiny. In particular, the committee concurs with the recommendation of the DPRRC that the powers in Part 1, which are not accompanied by a sunset provision and are thus particularly important, should be subject to a sifting mechanism, as well as those in Part 3 and for the Clause 18 powers.

Rather than duplicate unnecessarily the provisions laid out in the 2018 Act, the amendments tabled in my name seek to make clear that the relevant delegated powers would be subject to these provisions. Given that we are in Committee, I hope that the Minister will understand that any issues in the drafting are the result of not having gone through all detail before, and that he will focus instead on the principle that the wide-ranging powers allowed for under the current Bill should be subject to a greater level of scrutiny. That, as I say, is not only for the sake of Parliament but to protect the Government from any errors.

I know that there may be some noble Lords who will probably disagree, having spent many a long afternoon in the Moses Room, but actually the sifting mechanism in the 2018 Act did work really well, and I think that that was the view of Ministers as well as those doing the scrutiny. Given that, it is slightly hard to see why the Government have not thought to repeat that process in this Bill, particularly given that it has been recommended by the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, and in addition to those I will speak to Amendment 66A, which is on a more specific question. I endorse entirely what the noble Baroness said. I find it extremely difficult to understand what change of circumstance has made it necessary to depart from the very effective system that we produced in 2018 for sifting. At that stage I was a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and we were strongly in favour of the process because it did a good job.

I noticed just now that the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, who sadly is not in his place, when responding I think to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to “a change of regime” between the Administration of Mrs May and Mr Johnson. Regime change has a certain curious association in our minds, but if that is the real reason why there has been a change between 2018 and 2019 in the treatment of these matters, then of course that has wider significance because it is well known that the new Government take what I should perhaps call a more cavalier attitude to the role of Parliament, not least because they have a large majority in the other place.

I was contemplating just now the final part of Clause 38, with which my noble friend Lord Wallace was dealing. I did not intervene in the debate because it was so erudite that it went way above my head, but I thought that the final sentence—

“nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom”—

was a bit optimistic. Frankly, there are all sorts of relatively small items that refer to the role of Parliament, which is why the sifting issue comes in. It is rather like arriving at the pearly gates and thinking that it would somehow ease one’s passage to say to St Peter, “Look, I know I’ve committed all sorts of sins, but they’re all relatively minor, and in any case I went on record just before I arrived here and swore that I was actually very much against sin.” I notice we have two representatives of my church here so I hope that they will endorse that. It is really what this clause is saying: “Take no notice of the fact that throughout the Bill there are all sorts of examples where the Government are not really giving Parliament its proper role. Do not worry about it because we say that we are against that.” I find that not very consoling. The sifting mechanism is well tried. It has worked and we find it very difficult to understand why it has been ruled out in these circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for their opening statements on the amendments in this group. Of course, I well remember the many debates that we had during the passage of the 2018 Act on the extremely important subject of delegated powers. It is of great interest to us. I do not think the other place took as much interest in it, but it is nevertheless an important subject and I am grateful to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for raising it.

I will say at the start that the Government have read with care the reports of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, of course, the Constitution Committee, which were referred to. I am also grateful, as I said in my opening at Second Reading, for their contribution to the exit process to date.

I will speak first to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I note that they are co-signed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who is not in his place. He is a signatory to these amendments and an extremely distinguished chair of the committee. A number of Members here are, of course, veterans of the debate that we had during the passage of the EU withdrawal Act about the introduction of a sifting mechanism into the Act. I agree that the sifting mechanism introduced then was a contribution to the unique set of circumstances in which we found ourselves as a consequence of that Act. I will argue today that the circumstances in which we find ourselves now are very different from those of the 2018 Act.

The first point, of course, is that the volume of statutory instruments that we will make under this Bill will be significantly less than those made under the 2018 Act. I suspect that this comes as a significant relief to many noble Lords. Secondly, the powers themselves are much narrower and more specific in nature. The DPRRC report itself acknowledged that:

“The scope of each power is … naturally constrained by the scope of the … matter contained in the Agreements that it is intended to address.”


Even more importantly, we have set out the procedure to be used when exercising the powers in this Bill. Ministers do not have the discretion that was afforded to them in the 2018 Act regarding the procedure attached to the use of the powers in this Bill. The argument then was that we needed a sifting mechanism because of the wide discretion given to Ministers to select the appropriate procedure. We do not have that procedure in the way this is drafted. As Members have observed, the general approach that we have taken is that the affirmative procedure will apply when the powers in the Bill are exercised so as to modify primary legislation—the so-called Henry VIII power—or retained direct principal EU legislation; the affirmative procedure will always apply in those circumstances.

Where the negative procedure applies, Members of the House may scrutinise the regulations and may, of course, pray against them should they wish to do so, as is usual for regulations of this kind. The sifting mechanism that was inserted in the 2018 Act worked very well. It was a unique response to a unique Bill. There were always going to be a huge amount of SIs introduced. There was much less certainty at the time about how they would be used, and a considerable amount of ministerial discretion on the procedure to be used. I submit to the House that none of those conditions applies to this withdrawal agreement Bill. I hope I have explained why the procedures for the powers in this Bill are of a different nature to those in the withdrawal Act and why the Government therefore cannot accept these amendments.

I turn to Amendment 66A, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. As noble Lords are aware, consequential powers are standard provisions in legislation—even legislation of great constitutional importance, such as the Constitutional Reform Act or the devolution statutes. The Bill already includes many consequential amendments at Schedule 5, but we also need to take a power to make further consequential provisions to the statute book. Again, this power is limited to making amendments consequential to the contents of the Act itself and. like consequential powers in other primary legislation, this power will be construed strictly by the courts. It is in everyone’s interest that the statute book functions effectively.

[Lord Tyler]

Is the Minister really saying that Clause 41(1) is so limited in that way? Perhaps I may read it to him again:

“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate in consequence of this Act.”


That is very widely drawn. If, as he said just now, there are fewer orders in prospect, that makes it all the more important that, with something as important as this, the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee be taken into account. I cannot see that his argument stands up.

[Lord Callanan]

The clause that the noble Lord quoted comes under the consequential provisions. As I just said, the consequential power is construed strictly by the courts. I am advised by departmental lawyers that there is an extremely narrow focus; they are amendments that can be made only as a direct consequence of the Bill when it is enacted. I do not think that it in any way provides leeway for a Minister to make things up on the spur of the moment and amend primary legislation. The powers are very strictly constrained to consequential amendments, and this is not an unusual provision. It exists in many other Acts, including those I quoted earlier. We believe that moving the consequential provision to the affirmative procedure would frustrate the ability of departments to make consequential changes before exit day.

As I said also on the other amendments, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that the use of the negative procedure does not prevent parliamentary scrutiny taking place. Members will still have the opportunity to pray against regulations should they consider it appropriate—and, as I said, there are the restrictions on the use of that power that I mentioned earlier.

I hope that, with the reassurances I have given noble Lords and a fuller explanation of the powers we propose to take, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting
Monday 20th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am a co-signatory, with the noble Baroness, to Amendment 3, which leads this group. There is little that I need to add to what she has already said or, indeed, to what was said in the debate last week. However, I would like to raise one or two points with the Minister.

Looking at this as dispassionately and objectively as one can, one wonders whether Clause 21 was drafted before there was any confidence that there would be a new devolved Administration in Stormont. The impression is given that everything was going to have to be decided in London still, whereas since then there has been a very dramatic and welcome change in Northern Ireland—I give credit to the Minister and his colleagues for the part that they played in that. However, it looks as if this was thought through before that element was fully appreciated. It makes much better sense to go through the proper process of primary legislation and not to divert into secondary legislation for this purpose.

Last week, I quoted the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who referred to this clause as being, “Henry VIII on steroids”. It is the most egregious example of a really powerful use of a Henry VIII power in the whole Bill. There are several others, but this is the most obvious one because, as the noble Baroness has already said, it allows the change in the statute to be made without a reference to Parliament fully in its role as scrutineer. The Minister will recall that, in a powerful recommendation, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said:

“Even if the House accepts that there is a good reason for Clause 21 to allow regulations to modify the 2018 Act, the power should, in our view, be limited to the minimum necessary. We therefore recommend that the Bill should spell out the purposes for which the power is to be used rather than leaving the matter at large.”


The Bill should spell out how the power should be used, rather than the House just getting assurances from the Minister.

In last week’s debate, the Minister was kind enough to refer to this issue in the following terms:

“It would be very easy for me to say: ‘You have just got to trust me’. That is not what I am trying to say, and it would be foolish as noble Lords should not try to trust me. The important thing is to test me, and to test the Government. That is why, as well as putting these points to the House now, and setting out the areas in which we do need these necessary powers, I am happy to put that in to a note which I will supply and make available to all noble Lords who are interested in this, so they can see where we believe this power will be required to deliver the very thing that Northern Ireland wants: safety and security within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 14/1/20; col. 639.]


As the noble Baroness has said, there is apparently such a letter: I have not seen it. I took part extensively in that debate. I was in the Committee until almost the last moment on Thursday; I was in the House again this morning at 9.30 am. I cannot be accused of being absent on leave; I have been around. Why did that letter not come to me? From what the noble Baroness said, I can assume that there is an attempt to justify this part of the Bill. I have huge respect for the Minister and his respect for this House is well known, but, frankly, it is not satisfactory for Members of your Lordships’ House to be given that sort of undertaking from a Minister. It makes it very difficult for me and, no doubt, other Members who attended that debate but did not take part, if they have not seen the justification given in the letter.

Given that the House has now voted to amend the Bill, it is going to the Commons, even if it is for a very short time. There must surely be an opportunity for the Minister to explain on the record—not just with a letter, which may go astray—why the exceptional use of Henry VIII powers which I have described is being made at this juncture. That is all I need to say at the moment, but I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister may say. Perhaps he is going to read us the letter.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, refers to this as an “exceptional use” of Henry VIII powers. I wish I could be comforted to that extent, but it seems to me that the use of Henry VIII powers is an endemic vice in government, and I wonder why Ministers and officials never learn. The Henry VIII powers taken in relation to Clause 21 are very extensive indeed. I certainly accept what the Minister says, that it is not their intention to amend the devolution settlement, which ought to be amended by primary legislation. It is, none the less, offensive in principle to take such powers: it does not need to be done. The Government seem to think it is expedient, but it is actually very bad for trust between Parliament and the Executive, and, I think, bad for trust between politics and the people.

The Minister and I had a brief exchange in Committee on this, and on the particular question of whether the powers that the Government propose to take to themselves to alter primary legislation, or even abolish primary legislation by statutory instrument, would be subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure. He said his advice from his officials was that they would be subject to the affirmative procedure, and I agree that that is indeed the case where Clause 21 is concerned, but when we come to Clause 41, which is the most all-embracing, there is a socking great Henry VIII power. It is an almost megalomaniac provision and there is no such assurance available. As I understand the legislation, and as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, more significantly, understands the legislation, the exercise of those powers under Clause 41 would be by the negative procedure. That is even more offensive, and it would be very helpful if the Minister would comment.

I hope the Minister will accept that, as a matter of general principle, the use of Henry VIII powers is objectionable; that if they are to be taken, they need to be defended in very clear and specific terms, as they have not so far been in the consideration of this legislation; and that the offence is compounded where the proposal is that the exercise of those powers should not be subject to the affirmative procedure.