Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Grand Committee do consider the Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, nutritional-related labelling, composition and standards are regulated to protect public health. It is essential that food businesses and enforcement officers understand the specific nutrition-related rules that must be complied with. This instrument enables that, making technical amendments to ensure that the regulatory framework remains functional throughout the UK from 1 January 2021. It implements no policy changes.
Trade from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK will take place as it does now. At the end of the transition period, businesses in any part of the UK may continue to place their goods in any part of the UK internal market without new restrictions.
Primarily, this instrument reflects the Northern Ireland protocol by amending the Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and revoking the Nutrition (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. It also remedies deficiencies in retained European Union nutrition legislation which have come into force since March 2019. It delivers continuity for businesses and consumers by allowing nutritional products to be manufactured and sold to the same world-leading standards.
By way of background, I am sure that everyone will welcome a brief summary of the 2019 regulations. Made in preparation for our exit from the EU, those regulations make technical amendments, changing redundant EU-specific references and transferring functions and powers currently held by the European Commission to the appropriate authorities in each of the UK’s constituent nations. This is with the explicit aim of mirroring the existing regulatory system following the end of the transition period.
However, this instrument is now needed to give effect to the Northern Ireland protocol, which was agreed last year. The protocol requires that EU legislation is continued in its application in Northern Ireland. Consequently, the instrument removes Northern Ireland from the scope of the 2019 regulations and changes UK-specific references to Great Britain, preventing functions being transferred from the European Commission to the Department of Health in Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, the instrument revokes the 2019 Northern Ireland regulations, which amended domestic nutrition legislation in Northern Ireland in preparation for the end of the transition period. These amendments and revocations see that EU nutrition legislation continues to apply in Northern Ireland and that our obligations under the protocol are met. The instrument also remedies deficiencies in retained EU nutrition legislation that have come into force since 2019. These concern infant formula and health claims that can be made about foods.
The devolved Administrations have been involved in this instrument’s preparation and have consented to it. Further to this, we have provisionally agreed a common framework for nutrition that will maintain existing standards and promote common approaches to nutrition policy in the future. I am grateful to the Administrations for their continued collaboration.
Scrutiny by the House of Lords Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee and committees in the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies have now been completed, and their valuable input is currently being considered.
Furthermore, the draft instrument was the subject of a four-nation public consultation in July. Respondents represented sector stakeholders across the UK, including trade bodies, local authorities and businesses, with the majority supporting our approach. The Government’s response to the consultation was published on 24 September. Since then, my department has updated guidance for businesses regarding practical changes to nutrition legislation from 1 January 2021. That, too, was tested with stakeholders and published on GOV.UK on 17 November.
This instrument proposes no significant changes and, consequently, we estimate that there will be no significant impact on industry or the public sector. I assure noble Lords that the SI will provide continuity for business and consumers following the end of the transition period and uphold our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for setting out these regulations very clearly and for dealing with the consultation on them. As he rightly said, the essence of these EU exit regulations relates to the Northern Ireland protocol and the withdrawal agreement. The EU nutrition legislation will continue to be applicable in Northern Ireland, while in Great Britain we will be able to set our own regulatory regime.
As my noble friend said, a consultation was carried out between 9 and 30 July 2020, inviting participation from food manufacturing and nutrition industry representative groups and the public more generally. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend, first, why the consultation period was so short. There were only 18 respondents. The responses seem quite probing and informative, but such a short period meant that inevitably those participating were relatively few in number.
I turn to some questions based on the consultation. Some 71% of respondents thought that the wording and technical details of the process needed clarification. That is a relatively high percentage, admittedly of a small number of respondents, but perhaps my noble friend can say what Her Majesty’s Government are doing in response to that. There were also requests for simplification of the process.
With regard to access to information on the process, trade bodies requested more regular updates than the current quarterly BEIS updates. What are the Government doing in response to that? Is there to be a more frequent response from BEIS to help trade bodies and those who need these updates?
In the consultation, the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol was also raised by many, expressing concern about the divergence. The consultation response —in, I have to say, a rare example of it perhaps not hitting the nail on the head—talked about how people were unable to estimate exactly how they would be impacted individually. That is scarcely surprising; it is not really evident at the moment, so I do not think that that is a sufficient answer to that concern.
On the consultation process, 82% expressed themselves satisfied, although there was some concern about the short period of the consultation, to which I have already alluded.
Perhaps I may compliment the Government on the consultation response that we see here. All too often over the years, as I am sure other noble Lords will agree, the quality of consultation responses has perhaps not always been what we would have wished for. However, in my view, this consultation response was set out in a very lucid and straightforward way. It was, in many ways, a model. In most cases, it also acknowledges shortcomings and seeks to address concerns, and that is to be welcomed. For example, on divergence, it highlights the common frameworks approach, which my noble friend also referenced, as successful. I agree entirely with this part of the consultation response, and I hope that we are able to pass that outcome and make this compulsory reading for the ministerial team dealing with UKIM. The common frameworks approach is successful and works, and it will be increasingly important, given that so much has now returned from Europe and we are dealing with—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
It is somewhat ironic that I was just stressing the importance of devolved arrangements when we were called to a vote on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. I was concluding my remarks, but I want to say that I am very pleased that the guidance has now been published—I think my noble friend said—on 17 November. I hope that has given those concerned sufficient time to become acquainted with the guidance and the impact of the regulations. I welcome that, given the impending nature of the new system that is coming into force.
I welcome the statement that officials across the four nations will continue to work closely together to prepare the United Kingdom for the end of the transition period. As I say, it is becoming very apparent that our devolved arrangements within these islands will be increasingly important in the years ahead, and that is now looming with the new period starting with 1 January 2021. I welcome that and support the regulations, subject to the remarks that I have made.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee and thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations which are being introduced primarily to implement the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and to address the deficiencies in retained EU law. I agree with the Minister that it is important to protect public health.
I will concentrate on the areas that have an impact on the Northern Ireland protocol and the intersection with that particular common framework. I have certain questions that I would like the Minister to answer. If he cannot provide answers today, perhaps he will provide them in writing to me. I underscore the point again that public health is of vital importance. Therefore, where do the regulations intersect with the Nutrition Related Labelling, Composition and Standards common framework, which is currently subject to ongoing consultation? Was cognisance taken of this provisional framework in drawing up this statutory instrument? From what I gathered from the Minister, that was the case. I contend that there are issues and therefore a need for ongoing scrutiny and parliamentary reports where such intersections occur.
While Northern Ireland officials, Ministers, and particularly in this instance the Department of Health and Social Care and Minister Swann will no doubt participate fully in this framework, does the Minister anticipate any issues related to policy divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK at the end of the transition period? I note that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, referred to certain issues to do with divergence in relation to the protocol.
What was the nature of the consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive and particularly the Department of Health and Social Care and the Food Standards Agency regarding the content of this statutory instrument? It is interesting to note that although Annexe 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol states that EU nutrition rules will continue to apply to Northern Ireland, I could not find any reference to that in the initial documents in the provisional common framework. That may have been corrected in the further documentation on this. Why is that the case? The likelihood of divergence will increase over time and could potentially have serious implications for the future operation of the UK-wide framework as well as for public health.
I come at this from a position of not wanting a border in the Irish Sea, and I come politically from the point of view that I do not want a border on the island of Ireland between the UK and the European Union. But issues thrown up yesterday by the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium have been amplified by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in letters to the European Commission. There are currently two lists of foods: prohibited and allowed. If we want to ensure that public health is promoted in Northern Ireland, it is important that those foods on the prohibited list, such as seed potatoes and other types of seeds, can go on to that allowed list to ensure a continuation of a varied diet and varied access to foodstuffs and food supplies for all consumers in Northern Ireland. That is vital.
Two weeks ago at Oral Questions, I asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the noble Lord, Lord True, about this issue, and he said that it was a matter of ongoing negotiations. As we are just five weeks from the end of the transition period, I ask the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, whether there has been any progress on those negotiations or any definite outcome. It is vital to not only our retail industry, but to public health, diet and food standards in Northern Ireland.
It is important that flexibilities are introduced to ensure that certain foods are moved from the prohibited to the allowed list to ensure good public health as well as a buoyant economy, and that local consumers have access to affordable food supplies and are not forced to resort further to food banks.
I am as guilty as the next person in these debates in traversing and travelling in various directions. As well as this statutory instrument on nutritional matters, there is the other common framework about food and feed policy approaches that throws up issues about the Northern Ireland protocol. I am simply asking for equality and access to all the same foodstuffs that we currently have, so that all consumers can access a good-quality diet at an affordable cost.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, will be followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this instrument was prepared by the Department of Health and Social Care and laid before Parliament. Its purpose is to reflect the Northern Ireland protocol by amending and revoking the nutritional regulations 2019 and to remedy deficiencies in retained European Union legislation on nutrition.
The NIP was designed as a practical solution to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, while ensuring that the UK, including Northern Ireland, could leave the EU as a whole. It necessarily included a number of special provisions which apply in Northern Ireland only for as long as the protocol is in force.
Nutrition law is a devolved competence; however, this policy area has been designated by the UK Government for consideration for a common approach. The justifications for a common approach are twofold. First, as these laws originally relate to the cohesion of the EU single market, it is appropriate that similar consideration is given to the UK’s internal market. Secondly, the statutory instrument will ensure a swift, smooth and orderly EU exit that minimises disruption for business and consumers, which is why I support it. Nutrition is an important part of our daily life. In this pandemic era, there are many families unable to have nutritious food, so the health of the family suffers, causing long-term harm, particularly to the children.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that the documentation was both clear and comprehensible. I also compliment her on her command of these issues, which is of course entirely to be expected.
As the Minister set out, these are important regulations that largely make technical changes to retained EU law so that references to the UK become references to Great Britain instead. This is because the Department of Health in Northern Ireland will not have the same functions transferred to it as the rest of the UK, and the amendments will therefore ensure that EU law continues to apply in Northern Ireland and that EU retained law in England, Scotland and Wales will therefore be effective.
Needless to say, while we recognise that these regulations are necessary and reflect the Northern Ireland protocol, they contravene some of the countless commitments made by the Conservative Government on the treatment of Northern Ireland. What would be the effect of this SI if the Government had their way on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, currently being voted on in the Chamber, and threw the international agreement and protocol out of the window? What would happen to measures such as this statutory instrument?
I understand that the devolved Administrations were involved in the drafting of this instrument, as is quite correct. Can the Minister confirm whether the UK is centred on maintaining existing standards and promoting common approaches to nutritional policy going forward? I agree with the important questions posed by all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. What assessment have the Government made of other potential future divergences which might arise from, for example, UK food labelling? What safeguards are in place to prevent regulatory divergence? We know that labelling specifically is a critical concern for food and drink manufacturers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As has been outlined, we will have different trading rules in Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1 January. There is a great risk that labelling use in Britain will no longer be legally recognised in Northern Ireland or on the continent. I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that that will not be the case. This is because it is quite possible that there may be food labelling regulatory divergence between the EU and Northern Ireland and Great Britain after the end of transition. Much will depend on trade deal negotiations, which may very well require regulatory alignment, including requirements for food manufacturers exporting across the channel to update their food labels for products placed on the UK or EU market.
This is not a long lead-in time. Does the Minister recognise the impact that delays in negotiations have had on operators? Is he confident that operators will have enough time to apply these changes, especially given the additional workplace challenges many have faced due to Covid?
It is also conceivable that there would be the political will to change current EU laws where there are particular public health concerns in the UK, including measures around, for example, addressing the obesity crisis by requiring calorie contents in alcoholic drinks. Given the link between Covid-19 risk factors and obesity, for example—and that is a good example—will the Minister confirm whether the Government have any such plans to deal with that kind of eventuality?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their extremely valuable contributions to this important debate. This statutory instrument is incredibly important. However, I reassure noble Lords that it does no more than is absolutely necessary to reflect the Northern Ireland protocol in law, ensuring that our obligations under the withdrawal agreement are met and to remedy some deficiencies in retained EU nutrition legislation, and that its passage is critical to ensuring a functioning regulatory system across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Bourne asked why the consultation occurred over such a short period and why it had seemingly so few responses. The engagement was as expected. It reflected probably the contentiousness of the proposals or otherwise, and it very much followed Cabinet Office consultation and guidelines. As such, it completely met the expectations of those who managed the consultation process. It was none the less an incredibly valuable process and we are extremely grateful to all those who participated in it.
I pay my respects to the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, in this matter and thank her very much for her kind comments about the arrangements and the process. In essence, her questions were largely about what provisions we were making for policy divergence. I reassure her that no divergence is anticipated. We are not putting in place mechanisms for divergence, because we are not planning to create it. We are simply reading across the current legislation and putting in place through this SI mechanisms to ensure that it can stay in place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about prohibited foods versus allowed foods. The list of prohibited foods to which she refers is out of scope of this instrument. However, the UK is proud of its world-leading food, health and animal welfare standards, not least those which relate to nutrition. We will neither lower our standards nor put the UK’s biosecurity at risk as we negotiate new trade deals. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government remain committed to promoting robust food standards nationally and internationally and to protecting consumer interests to ensure that consumers can have confidence in the food that they buy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, also asked about maintaining standards. I reassure her too that we do not currently envisage divergence. Were divergence ever to hove on to the agenda, we would of course consult on any new regulations, and that would be the time to take on board comments from industry. If a common approach cannot be agreed or would not be appropriate for one or more nations, and divergence between the UK nations occurred, the UKIM Bill provides for goods made and labelled in any of the UK nations to be recognised and sold in any of the others, subject to the NIP, without discrimination.
I hope very much that I have been able to answer the questions raised by noble Lords, and with that in mind I commend these regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.45 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, some Members are here observing social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I shall immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed; your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same, except as demonstrated otherwise by the clerk; that may be slightly different.
Coronavirus Act 2020 (Expiry of Mental Health Provisions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Grand Committee do consider the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Expiry of Mental Health Provisions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of the regulations, which were considered and agreed to in another place on 18 November. During the debate on the six-month review of the Coronavirus Act held in September in the other place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced the Government’s decision to sunset the emergency provisions to allow for temporary easements of the Mental Health Act 1983 in England, as they are no longer necessary. These provisions may be found in Schedule 8 to the Coronavirus Act. The regulations therefore seek to enact this decision and so expire provisions in Schedule 8 to the Coronavirus Act 2020.
The emergency provisions, which these regulations seek to remove, were introduced to protect the safety of patients by ensuring that mental health services could continue to provide vital care and treatment if there were extreme staffing shortages during the pandemic. The need for them has been kept under continual review, particularly as the Government are extremely conscious that the provisions, had they been commenced, would have had serious consequence for individuals involved.
We are pleased that, due to the resilience and resourcefulness of the NHS in England and its staff, the provisions have not been commenced as they have not been needed. It is huge testament to the dedication and dynamism of NHS staff that mental health services continue to be able to provide support to people detained under the Mental Health Act, while under the extensive pressures resulting from the pandemic.
The Government, NHS England and NHS Improvement have taken a huge range of steps to support mental health services so that, despite ongoing workforce pressures resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, they can continue to deliver vital care and treatment to individuals. The department and NHS England and NHS Improvement issued Legal Guidance for Mental Health, Disability and Autism, and Specialised Commissioning Services Supporting People of All Ages during the Coronavirus Pandemic. That guidance set out how the Act’s code of practice may be interpreted during this period. For example, it allows for the delivery of statutory forms electronically to allow mental health staff to work more flexibly and reduce risk of Covid infection. It also set out how video technology can be used for medical assessments to be carried out remotely under the Act, to make it easier for two doctors to examine a patient during the pandemic period.
The department has also supported the Care Quality Commission in bringing in a modified second opinion appointed doctor—SOAD—service, which allowed this service to work remotely. This enabled procedures around assessing and approving the medical treatment of patients detained under the Act to continue as normal, rather than enacting powers that would lessen this important safeguard. These measures, coupled with the resilience and innovation of mental health staff, have been effective in mitigating pressures on mental health services, avoiding the need to commence the emergency powers.
In reaching their decision to remove the provisions, the Government have listened to stakeholders and to Parliament. Three parliamentary committees have recommended that we take this step. The Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the Government’s response to Covid argued that the need to maintain robust safeguards for patients detained under the Mental Health Act was heightened, and cautioned that if we enacted the provisions they would weaken the protections available. The Women and Equalities Committee noted concern that the provisions went against the direction of travel towards reform of the Mental Health Act, to
“a more balanced system with more safeguards, more choice and less restriction”,
as set out in the independent review of the Mental Health Act 1983. Further, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report on the Government’s response to Covid and the Coronavirus Act noted the concerns of the mental health charity Mind and its call for the removal of these temporary powers.
The decision to expire these provisions has been positively received by a wide range of stakeholders—including the Law Society and Rethink Mental Illness, which said that the decision came as a relief to many people living with mental illness and their loved ones—and by the House of Commons.
The Secretary of State was not persuaded, even during the initial Covid peak, that switching these powers on was necessary because our mental health services have shown incredible strength and ingenuity, for which I express immense gratitude to NHS staff. These powers are no longer required, and these regulations seek to expire them.
I will take a moment to briefly remind noble Lords about the contents of the provisions that these regulations seek to expire. The provisions would have enabled an approved mental health professional to apply to detain an individual under the Mental Health Act following the advice of one registered medical practitioner, where securing two recommendations was considered impractical or would have led to undesirable delay. The provisions would also have allowed for an extension of the time that hospital in-patients could be temporarily detained, pending an application for longer detention under the Mental Health Act.
For those in contact with the criminal justice system who have a mental illness, the provisions in the Act would have extended the amount of time a person can be remanded to hospital, allowed an accused or convicted person to be sent to hospital on the recommendation of just one registered medical practitioner rather than two, and extended the procedural time limits for transferring a prisoner to hospital.
Since the Coronavirus Act was enacted, the Government have remained committed to keeping all its aspects under close review and have stated that any provisions no longer necessary will be sunsetted. The Act will expire in its entirety two years after the date it was passed, but also contains a power allowing for the expiry of some provisions to be brought forward ahead of that time. It should be noted that these regulations will not expire the transitional provisions within Schedule 8 to the Act; however, those will have no legal or practical effect.
The Mental Health Act 1983 applies to both England and Wales. The application of the regulations differs for each country. I will therefore seek to clarify their effect on Wales. First, those easements which relate to health services in Wales will remain available to Wales. Health is a matter devolved to the Welsh Government. But, secondly, those easements concerning the operation of justice under the Act—that is, for patients under sentence or subject to criminal proceedings—will be removed for both England and Wales. These remain matters reserved to Her Majesty’s Government. With the exception of provisions relating to the Welsh mental health review tribunal, none of these provisions has been commenced. Should it ever be deemed necessary to return to these provisions, the Government will seek to introduce new legislation.
I thank the staff of NHS mental health services, who have coped without the need to turn on these emergency powers through their hard work, supported by the department and NHS England and NHS Improvement and through innovative approaches. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I unequivocally endorse the Minister’s words of appreciation of the work of everyone, at every level, who has maintained a degree of service that has avoided the use of the powers under Schedule 8. It is an unalloyed pleasure not to be giving the Minister a hard time, given that, as far as I can see and looking back in history, no other Minister in the Lords has taken more flak for the Government as a whole for so little reward. It is therefore a pleasure to be able to say that this is a very welcome move.
Noble Lords will remember, because they were either in the Chamber or, more likely, watching, the powerful speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, back on 25 March, when the Minister was putting the Bill through this House. On both disability and mental health, she understandably warned of the danger to the rights of so many people from the measures that were felt at the time to be needed to ensure that functioning services could continue, albeit without the safeguards that all of us would wish. This afternoon we acknowledge that those safeguards are being put back in place—their erosion has not been needed—and, as the Minister said, that is due to so much hard work and ingenuity by so many people. I am sorry that the Welsh Administration feel that they still need the measures as a backstop. I hope that they will not, after their two-week lockdown, feel that they still need to be used.
I just ask the Minister in a friendly way whether he can identify—if not this afternoon, perhaps he can write to me—any service level agreement from the Treasury in relation to the £3 billion announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of mental health services? While the withdrawal of the powers under Schedule 8 is entirely welcome, the capacity within the system before the Covid pandemic was under enormous strain, and that has obviously been made worse by the number of people who have experienced mental health and stress issues over the past nine months. Many more will experience these over the winter until we have the vaccine onstream and can get back to some sort of normality.
Capacity will remain a major question for all of us, and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that a proportion of the additional resource being allocated to getting the health service back onstream and undertaking the diagnostic and treatment requirements that have so often been delayed will also apply to the capacity of the mental health services. With that, I welcome the regulations very strongly.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, removal of the mental health provisions from the Coronavirus Act, which represented a significant reduction in protection and safeguards for people subject to the Mental Health Act is, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, very welcome. Serious concerns have been raised about whether it would ever be human rights-compliant to enact the provisions. Even before the Covid-19 crisis hit, mental health services were severely stretched, with waiting times and barriers to access which would be considered unacceptable in any other area of medicine.
Turning to the scale of need, psychiatrists have reported an increase in patients needing urgent and emergency care during the crisis, and the latest NHS Digital figures show the highest recorded figures for mental health contact. According to the Centre for Mental Health, there are approximately 10 million extra people with mental health needs due to the pandemic. A survey conducted in late spring by the charity Rethink showed that almost 80% of people with pre-existing mental illnesses reported that their mental health had got worse or much worse as a result of the pandemic, and the ONS found that almost one in five adults in Britain experienced depressive symptoms in June 2020—roughly twice the number before the pandemic. Against this backdrop, it is crucial to the nation's Covid-19 recovery that existing mental health funding commitments in the NHS long-term plan are delivered in full and that services are resourced to support those who had new or worsening mental health difficulties because of the crisis. It is not either/or, it is both/and.
It is of course welcome that eventually an extra £500 million was promised in the mental health winter plan, published on Monday, to help with discharge to community care, workforce issues and addressing waiting times. This is a good start, but unlikely to be sufficient and, crucially, does not come onstream until the next operational year, leaving a gaping hole in the tough winter period ahead. What commitments can the Minister give that some of this new money will be spent on preventive work and early intervention to stop mental health issues escalating to crisis point and putting additional pressures on expensive police, A&E and in-patient services?
In the long term, it is not just a case of mental health services surviving the pandemic; they will need drastically to expand and improve to deal with the long-term impact of social isolation, mass unemployment and pandemic-induced anxiety.
The powers we are debating weakened an Act that was already in need of major reform. The independent review of the Mental Health Act put forward proposals to improve the system and increase patient rights. Can the Minister update the Committee on when the Government will provide a full response to the independent review and publish their proposals to take forward reform of the Mental Health Act, with a clear implementation timescale? The two-year anniversary of the publication of the Mental Health Act review will be 6 December 2020. I strongly hope that the Government’s response will not be delayed beyond that point.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the coronavirus and the isolation of lockdown are impacting not just our physical health but our mental health, as people deal with loneliness, stress and anxiety. Whether we are working from home, furloughed or travelling to our workplaces, the drastic changes to our workday can take a toll. Employers must play a vital role in supporting the mental health of their workforce by prioritising and promoting a positive well-being culture.
The CBI, of which I am president, has been working with firms of every size and sector to help tackle the challenge of mental health in a pandemic. The Law Society, a member of the CBI, supports these regulations, which will expire provisions in Schedule 8 to the Coronavirus Act 2020 which would weaken Mental Health Act 1983 protections if brought into force. The Law Society states that it recognises that, at the onset of the pandemic, these exceptional emergency provisions were considered potentially necessary to support healthcare professionals in responding to the immediate crisis, but that, as they have not been used in England to date, as the Minister said, they should be expired so as to restore the full certainty of important statutory protections for vulnerable people.
The Law Society also recommends that the Government consider expiring the provisions under Schedule 12 to the Coronavirus Act alongside the expiration of those under Schedule 8 being implemented by these regulations. However, if Schedule 12 remains in force, the Law Society recommends that the Government publish improved guidance clarifying how to conduct the required process under these easements and provide detailed guidance to assist local authorities in making human rights assessments. Do the Government intend to expire the provisions under Schedule 12 to the Coronavirus Act, which weaken statutory protections for vulnerable people under the Care Act 2014 and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, alongside the expiration of those under Schedule 8? Will the Minister commit to providing improved guidance on the easements under Schedule 12, clarifying how local authorities should conduct relevant processes and make human rights assessments?
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I thank everyone whose kindness has made taking on my new role so straightforward. I thank the doorkeepers and attendants who have guided me more than once along different corridors. I thank the parliamentary staff who have supported my induction, and my party colleagues and the Front Bench team who have guided me through the rules and practices of this House. I must also thank my noble friends Lady Blower and Lady Osamor for supporting me at my introduction. Finally, I owe particular thanks to John McDonnell MP, who encouraged me to take up this new challenge, and my family, who have given me their support despite the disruption in their lives.
I aim to be an asset to this House, contributing my particular skills and knowledge. There is my lifetime of activity in the trade union movement, where I am glad to join a number of old colleagues. More notable is that I am an actuary, the first in this House for more than 70 years. The only other was the first Baron May of Weybridge. He was a prominent public figure and a formidable character, so it is odd that during his 11 years in the House he never made a speech. That means, I am proud to say on behalf of myself and my profession, that this is the first time an actuary has ever spoken in Parliament. I can certainly say that it will not be the last.
One thing that Lord May did was to play a significant role in bringing down a Government. Unfortunately, it was the 1931 Labour Government. I may not be able to go that far, but I shall use to my time to hold the Government to account.
A key skill that you must learn as an actuary is to explain what you do. The application of higher maths to finance sounds too technical, yet the assessment of mortality sounds too gloomy. As an actuary who specialises in pensions, my role has been to provide advice for trade unions when seeking to improve or, increasingly, to defend the pensions provided for their members. I am sorry to have missed the debates on the Pension Schemes Bill, but I have followed them and know that there are many pensions experts in the House. I look forward to joining them, particularly when we consider the further pensions Bill that the Pensions Minister has promised for this Parliament.
Turning to the statutory instrument before us today, I must state my keen and continuing interest in mental health. We know that these extraordinary powers were not required during lockdown, which is testament to the hard work of our mental health staff. They have coped without recourse to such drastic emergency measures and it is clearly right that they should now be expired. Mental health difficulties need to be discussed during this pandemic. We should understand the importance of social and financial stability in the face of the virus. We now realise that resilience lies not within an individual but within our community. Given the dire economic effects of both Brexit and the pandemic, it is vital to consider the NHS response to the increase in mental health difficulties. The proposed investment in mental health services is welcome, but it is still inadequate and barely makes up for the loss of support over the past 10 years. We need more investment. We also need to modernise the Mental Health Act. Public attitudes have improved markedly in the past 10 years, but the law has failed to keep pace. Of course, the pandemic has slowed progress, but we need the promised White Paper. Can the Minister promise to bring it forward as a matter of urgency?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend and I congratulate him on a fine maiden speech. As he said, he brings to your Lordships’ House a wide range of experience in the trade union movement, service on the GLC and as chair of ILEA, where he was a forceful champion of comprehensive education. However, I rather think that his being the first actuary to enter the Lords for more than 50 years will cause the most challenge to your Lordships. He will discover that we float figures around the House like confetti to justify whatever position we happen to take. Happily, this usually goes unchallenged, yet with my noble friend in place I suspect that we will need to be on our mettle and to expect robust scrutiny in the future.
As my noble friend said, it has not been necessary to use the powers in the regulations and their removal is warmly welcomed. Although the regulations are concerned with the requirements under the Mental Health Act 1983, this debate inevitably raises wider issues in relation to mental health provision during the pandemic and beyond.
We know that the pandemic has had a significant impact on the country’s mental health and well-being. What is the Minister’s assessment of this and what measures are being taken to restore services and deal quickly with the backlog of patients? Does he agree with the assessment of Scientists for Labour that there has been a stark decline in the availability of services? Research by Mind from May 2020 reported that the restrictions on seeing people, being able to go outside and worries about the health of family and friends are the key factors driving poor mental health. The Centre for Mental Health predicts that at least half a million more people may experience a mental health problem as a result of the pandemic. Does the Minister agree?
As part of the lockdown in March, dramatic changes were made by NHS mental health services, including discharging patients from in-patient community services and moving to online provision. Has the impact of that been measured? Does he accept that eye contact often plays an important role in cognitive behaviour therapy? We need to reflect on that before assuming that services can always be online in the future. Will the Minister agree to publish a comprehensive plan to restore levels of service, including a thorough assessment of what changes in demand for services are arising from the pandemic?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, has withdrawn from the debate and so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I know that he is well respected by trade unionists outside this place and he will bring to us a refreshing brand of politics. We will not always agree, but I like someone who gives us a feisty challenge. He cannot possibly have got lost here as often as I have done as a new girl in the past few weeks, so if I find the noble Lord, I will try to put him on the right track, although that will probably get him even more lost.
For once, I want to congratulate the Government on rolling back a piece of legislation. Indeed, I hope that we will see a lot more of this because it seems that so much of the Coronavirus Act 2020 is draconian, disproportionate and frighteningly illiberal. Even the assurance that it is temporary or for an emergency is of little consolation. I would personally expire the whole Act, but perhaps the Minister could start by looking again, as has already mentioned, at the provisions in Schedule 12 that also severely weaken the statutory protection for the vulnerable.
The need to protect the vulnerable against an overweening and arbitrary state power is exactly why Schedule 8 was always such an egregious and frightening position. For good reason, sectioning people is made difficult. The power to deprive individuals of their liberty under the aegis of mental health and for their own good has a sinister history: think of the lunatic asylums of the past, the Soviet use of psychiatric hospitals, and so on. We are right not to section people lightly, but perhaps the Minister could reflect on a number of unresolved ironies.
Lockdowns themselves are an example of the state depriving the whole citizenry of their liberty under the veil of public health. Locked up and locked down is a thin line in my view. Can the Minister assure us that when the lockdown ends on 2 December, it will not happen again? One worry about Schedule 8 has been the extension of the length of time that the mentally ill can be incarcerated on the say of one doctor. My worry is the endless and never-ending extension of the length of time that society is incarcerated on the say of one—dare I say?—Matt Hancock.
Will the Minister comment on the devastating impact that we have heard about so eloquently from fellow noble Lords that lockdown measures have caused a lot of damage to mental health in the community. Many, both young and old, are consumed with anxiety, deprived of their autonomy, subject to a form of solitary confinement and feel lonely and isolated. There is also fear not only of the virus but about the cataclysmic effect of lockdown on jobs and livelihoods.
Sufferers of dementia in care homes are locked away from families and stimulation, leading to a deterioration in their mental capacity, and in some instances, tragically, to premature death. In other words, lockdown and its ugly sister, tiering, are bad for the mental health of the well, let alone the mentally ill.
I have a final question. I note with horror that the Welsh Government are not expiring Schedule 8. Will the Minister do what he can to cajole or persuade his counterparts in the Senedd as soon as possible? I declare an interest as I am from north Wales, but I find it rather shameful that the mentally ill in Wales seem to need safeguarding from their own Parliament.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my praise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, on making an accomplished maiden speech and I welcome him to the House. He notes that he is the first actuary ever to speak in the House of Lords. I guess that it is something of a coincidence that at least two former Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions will have had a great deal of contact over the years with actuaries: the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I served as a special adviser with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and we had a number of conversations with actuaries over the years. I hope that this does not damn him with faint praise, but the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was the most engaged and enlivening to be given by an actuary that I have yet had the privilege of listening to. I know that he will enlighten the House in many ways in the years ahead, and I welcome him.
Let me praise the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care for taking this early step to remove these provisions. It is an unusual and commendable act to take swift action on a measure that was due to expire anyway, and it sends a welcome message about the Government’s attitude to mental health issues in that they have clearly heard and understood the grave concerns of many advocacy groups and individuals about the draconian level of these powers. It will help vulnerable individuals at an incredibly difficult time in their lives because of the trauma of lockdown restrictions to know that these provisions are no longer hanging over them. Let me give credit where it is due.
I will echo a number of previous speakers in raising concerns about the overall system. It is a symbol of the way that public services tend to act in that they have a bare level of functionality at the crisis end but remain desperately lacking at the preventive and therapeutic end of mental health provision, which remains a yawning gap. As many speakers have said, including the NHS Confederation, the peak has probably not yet come, and I hope that in the months ahead we will hear far more from the Government and the Minister about what action can be taken on that front.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, to your Lordships’ House and congratulate him on his speech. I was unaware of his professional background, but his explanation has led me to understand why there is such a sense of excitement among those Members of your Lordships’ House who are mere accountants. I look forward to the noble Lord joining the long-standing gang of Members who take a considerable interest in mental health and who often act as a bulwark against Members of the House of Commons who feel unable to take action on mental health legislation because of the grief they get from the popular press.
I declare an interest as a member of a special advisory panel for Rethink Mental Illness; I am indebted to it and to Mind for their briefings. When the Coronavirus Act went through, the mental health provisions were among the most controversial and the most feared, not only by lobby groups and patient groups—there was also a considerable amount of discomfort on the part of mental health professionals about what was being done. Under the Mental Health Act 2007, there is already a lack of patient involvement in decision-making, specifically in mental health. That is a fundamental flaw.
It was, on that basis, wrong to take away the safeguards that are the subject of these statutory instruments, and I am very glad that they have not had to be used. They have not had to be used because of the extraordinary efforts of both staff and indeed patients in the early part of this year. Both Mind and Rethink have done a considerable amount of work talking to people who were in acute services in particular. The surprising finding was the extent to which patients were deeply grateful to staff for continuing to look after them when the staff might well have been putting themselves in danger.
The extent to which patients were comfortable with incarceration during Covid was directly related to two factors: first, their ability to contact friends and family remotely and, secondly—because they are people just like the rest of us—the extent to which they were enabled to get out into the grounds and get fresh air. It is worth noting at this point that, in the recently announced hospital-building programme, only one of the new hospitals will be a mental health hospital. Given that we are likely for some considerable time to be going in and out of periods of physical restrictions because of the virus, we should do well to look at the physical estate of mental health services.
I agree with others that the £3 billion announced is very welcome, but there is a grave danger that it will be stretched way too thinly. A lot of it was earmarked before we entered the current situation. As others have said, and as the studies done by Mind and Rethink have shown, it is evident now that people are coming into community services with a greater degree of severity of mental distress and agitation. This is a clear signal that we will, in the coming months, see a much greater level of more severe illness if we do not put money now into rapidly accessible community services—patients are telling us that they cannot access those services. What efforts will be made to ensure that input of both staff and resources into a greater degree of community services?
In all the Government’s lockdown announcements, I have never seen anything acknowledging that those areas of the country that have been under severe lockdown for several months might have a greater need of mental health services than those that have not. Is that part of the analysis that the Minister’s department is undertaking? This is part of the question that I really wish to put to him. We are sitting waiting for the Government’s response to Sir Simon Wessely’s review. To what extent will the things that been learned during these last six months go into that review? For example, what have we learned about disproportionate levels of mental illness and lack of services among black and minority-ethnic communities, and what are we doing about children and young people? Can he tell us to what extent we have learned the lessons of the last six months and whether they will be in that new legislation?
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
I am very pleased to agree with the Minister on this statutory instrument, but I first welcome my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and congratulate him on his maiden speech today. He and I have known each other for many years, but have not really seen each other for probably the best part of 30 years. We hark back to the days when I was the chair of that venerable Labour institution the Greater London Labour Party, and my noble friend was a leading member of the GLC and the Inner London Education Authority. A couple of abolitions, many general elections and a Labour Government later, here we are in the House of Lords, and in probably its strangest state in its whole history. I welcome my noble friend; he is one of the very smartest people, and an actuary, as he says—the first here—and will, I am very sure, bring great value to our deliberations. And he should not worry: there will definitely be another pensions Bill along very soon.
When we were putting this emergency Covid legislation on the statute book in March, the easements that are the subject of this statutory instrument were the cause of much concern, because they concerned people’s liberty and human rights, which should not be put aside lightly, if at all. That is what we were saying at the time. They would have increased the amount of time that someone could be detained, decreased the number of qualified people required in the detainment procedure and weakened the Mental Health Act 1983 protections, if brought into force. I am grateful, like other noble Lords, for the excellent brief by the Law Society and its support for these regulations.
We recognise that, at the onset of the pandemic, these exceptional emergency provisions were considered potentially necessary to support healthcare professionals in responding to the immediate crisis. As they have not been used in England to date, they should indeed be expired—so I congratulate the Minister—and thus restore the full certainty of important statutory protections for vulnerable people. I add my thanks and gratitude to the mental health staff who have made things work so successfully under the most difficult conditions that we are able to put aside this part of the Coronavirus Act.
Are the Government considering expiring the provisions under Schedule 12 to the Coronavirus Act alongside the expiration of the provisions under Schedule 8 to the Act implemented by these regulations? As noble Lords will know, Schedule 12 makes modifications to provisions under the Care Act 2014 and Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, allowing local authorities to suspend their statutory duties to assess, develop and review individuals’ care plans, carry out financial assessments, and meet care and support needs. Local authorities must still carry out the above where a failure to do so would breach obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights but, for the majority of vulnerable people in the care of local authorities, this high bar provides little to no protection.
Six months on, it is deeply worrying that the Government still envisage the need to enact this watering down of conditions. Can the Minister provide an update on the number of times that these provisions have been used, why they were enacted and what impact they have had on residents? Can he provide assurances that provisions within this Act for care homes are not currently being enacted and describe the conditions under which they might be used?
We are of course still finding out the mental health cost of Covid, and it is disturbing that the Chancellor and Secretary of State for Health refer to the additional funding that the NHS needs to catch up on the cost to patients and treatment of Covid, but do not make the same commitments for social care or mental health. That is of great concern and is very short-sighted, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said. When will we see the results of the Mental Health Act review and promised reform, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned? We need to give more attention and resources to mental health.
A study from researchers at Oxford University found that nearly one in five people who has had Covid-19 was diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder—such as anxiety, depression or insomnia—within three months of testing positive for the virus. Not only do we have immediate issues, there are many coming down the track.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for a thoughtful and at times very generous debate, for which I am enormously grateful. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for a remarkable maiden speech and offer him a sincere welcome. He laid out his stall very clearly, first as a man of numbers—as many have noted, the debates of the House of Lords benefit from those who are numerate and articulate with numbers as well as words—secondly, as a supporter of the trade union movement, and I look forward to his interventions as a trade unionist; and thirdly, as a man of compassion. He spoke movingly about mental health and the provisions in these regulations, and has marked himself out as someone who I hope will make an important contribution to our health debates—he will be extremely welcome indeed.
We are aware that many people are facing unprecedented strains due to the pandemic and the measures to contain it. The mental health of everyone is absolutely critical in these unprecedented times. We know that some people will experience exacerbated mental health problems as a result of the pandemic, as has been noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Moreover, people with existing mental health conditions and front-line workers are particularly susceptible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, noted that self-reporting has gone up. Public Health England’s Covid-19 mental health and well-being report concluded that the UK population’s self-reported mental health and well-being worsened during the pandemic. The largest decline was in April 2020.
Average levels of mental distress have been reported as going up, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, noted, although by 8.1% measured by GHQ 12, not the high levels that some noble Lords have referred to, indicating an increase in the severity of mental health problems overall. A robust follow-up survey from July 2020 of children and young people aged five to 16 who were interviewed for the national mental health prevalence survey in 2017 suggests that rates of probable mental health disorder have increased from one in nine in 2017 to one in six in July 2020—a very regrettable development.
We understand that there is increasing evidence of significant mental health consequences for people who have contracted Covid and evidence that Covid itself impacts the central nervous system, which can affect mental health and well-being. Survivors of Covid appear to be at increased risk of psychiatric disorder. For patients with no previous psychiatric history, a diagnosis of Covid was associated with increased incidence of a first psychiatric diagnosis in the following 14 to 90 days, compared with six other healthcare events.
I reassure all noble Lords who have spoken that mental health continues to be a priority for this Government. We are doing our utmost to ensure that our mental health services are there for everyone who needs them during the pandemic. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that that is why in today’s spending review the Government have announced £500 million more for mental health support for new specialist services for children and young people, plus extra assistance for people with severe mental health illnesses and faster help for those afflicted by depression and anxiety.
The well-being and mental health support plan for Covid-19 published this week is a demonstration of the Government’s firm commitment to support the mental health of everyone throughout this winter and beyond. It outlines the support available to people over the coming winter. This is just one element of our work to deliver a modern mental health service and meet the demands created by the pandemic. We have announced two new commitments to support individuals: first, a winter discharge support package backed by £50 million, which will boost capacity and support good-quality discharge from mental health in-patient settings to help reduce pressures on in-patient beds and keep patients safe over the winter. Secondly, we are taking action to support the physical health of individuals with serious mental illnesses this winter, including support for systems to deliver local, system-level tailored engagement with patients and to develop national thought leadership on outreach.
We are absolutely committed to continuing our investment in expanding and transforming mental health services in England. This will amount to an additional £2.3 billion of extra funding a year on mental health services by 2023 to 2024. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we are taking a range of steps to support mental health services to be able to manage pressure over the winter period.
Above all, it is essential that the message is heard loud and clear across the country that NHS mental health services remain open for business and will be available throughout the winter. The earlier people receive support on their mental health, the more likely they are to benefit. However, in April this year, only 57,000 referrals were made, compared to 133,000 in April 2019. While figures for more recent months show that referral rates are recovering, they are significantly below last year’s. To help address this, last week we launched a new phase of our NHS Help Us, Help You campaign to encourage anyone suffering from anxiety, depression or other issues.
We will continue to make sure that mental health services, including hospitals providing in-patient treatment get equal access to PPE. All health and social care staff can access priority testing when they show symptoms, including those providing mental health services in hospitals. NHS staff without symptoms can also be tested at the discretion of their NHS trust. Hospitals can test patients, including those admitted with mental health conditions, even if there is a higher prevalence of Covid-19 in their area.
GP surgeries have been requested by NHS England to make improvements to ensure that the physical health of those living with severe mental illness is protected this winter. This includes asking practices to identify people with severe mental illnesses who are clinically vulnerable and offering those people comprehensive physical health checks and follow-up interventions, free flu vaccines to those eligible and a care plan review as appropriate.
The NHS has worked hard to keep mental health services going during the first peak, using technology where needed, but also face-to-face appointments where appropriate. All mental health trusts have established 24/7 urgent mental health helplines, where people experiencing a mental health crisis can access support and advice. In addition, we have provided £10.2 million of extra funding to support mental health charities, including the Samaritans and the Campaign Against Living Miserably.
Talking therapies will continue to be made available remotely, so that people can access help safely from home. The NHS will work to ensure that the option of face-to-face support, quite rightly alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Walney, is provided to people with serious mental health illnesses where it is clinically safe to do so.
Public Health England has published its surveillance tracker to monitor the impact of Covid-19 on the population’s mental health. This is a proactive step which will help to ensure that our response to the effects of Covid-19 on mental health and well-being is shaped by emerging data.
The Government have committed more than £400 million over the next four years to refurbish mental health facilities, getting rid of dormitories in mental health locations and benefiting the patients of 40 trusts across the country. We are committed to supporting our staff and investing in the workforce. NHS England and NHS Improvement are also investing £15 million to ensure that all staff get rapid access to expanded mental health services. Staff who are referred will be assessed rapidly, will be treated by local mental health specialists and, where appropriate, will be referred to specialist centres of excellence.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked about Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review of the Mental Health Act. I reassure noble Lords that work is well under way to respond to the review, and we will publish our White Paper in due course. This will pave the way for far-reaching reforms to the legislation and practice, strengthening the rights of patients and upholding the principles of dignity, autonomy and choice, which were enshrined in the review’s recommendations.
Since the Coronavirus Act was introduced, the Government have remained committed to keeping all elements of it under close review and to sunset any provisions that are no longer needed. As I set out earlier, the emergency modifications to the Mental Health Act made by the Coronavirus Act were designed to protect patients by supporting services to be able to continue if unprecedented constraints in the mental health sector put patients’ safety at risk during the pandemic. These provisions were only ever to be used as a backstop, as I told the Committee earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, referred to the very moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I remember her words extremely well. Decisions, over which we have no control whatever, about our uselessness will be taken by someone else in the next few months. I am very pleased that the provisions have not been switched on. I reassure noble Lords that at all times the Government have remained conscious of the need to balance those provisions against the rights of individuals detained under the Mental Health Act.
Those provisions have not needed to be switched on due to the adaptations that have been made because of the resilience and commitment of NHS staff. As a result, we believe that now is the right time to remove them so that it is clear to patients, carers, staff and stakeholders that they will not be used. The approval of these regulations by this House to remove these emergency provisions is an important milestone on the journey towards much-needed reforms to the Mental Health Act. These reforms—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The Division Bell is ringing. I wonder whether the Minister is coming to the end of his remarks.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
If the Minister would like to finish, I will then adjourn the Committee and there will be plenty of time for noble Lords to vote.
Lord Bethell (Con)
These reforms, which will see that patients have greater autonomy and control over their care and treatment, will be set out in the Government’s forthcoming White Paper on this subject.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5 pm. I remind noble Lords to sanitise their desks before they leave the Room, and to vote, should they wish to do so.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Members’ microphones will no longer be turned on at all times in order to reduce noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for muting and unmuting for remote participants remains the same. The time limit for debate on the following statutory instrument is one hour.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That the Grand Committee do consider the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 32nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, the instrument before the Grand Committee today relates to the question of which courts should be able to depart from retained EU case law. From January, UK courts, rather than the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU, will be the final arbiter of laws that govern our lives. In order to promote legal clarity and certainty in our law following our departure from the EU, Parliament has provided that EU law that we have chosen to retain is to be interpreted in line with EU case law which we have also chosen to retain.
The way in which our law is interpreted by courts and tribunals does not remain static over time. Our departure from the EU has, naturally, brought with it a change to the context in which the law is considered, and we want our courts to be able to reflect that in their decisions where appropriate. Without the ability to depart from EU case law, there is a risk that UK law will remain tied to an interpretation from the CJEU that is no longer appropriate in the UK.
For that reason, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 vested in the UK Supreme Court and, in Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary, in specified cases, the power to depart from retained EU case law, applying their own tests for deciding whether to depart from their own case law when doing so.
This instrument will extend the number of UK courts with the power to depart from retained EU case law to include courts at Court of Appeal level across the UK. In making such decisions, the test to be applied by these courts is to be the same as that used by the UK Supreme Court in deciding whether to depart from its own case law—namely, whether it is right to do so.
The instrument will achieve our aim of enabling retained EU case law to evolve in a more timely way than otherwise might have been achieved through the status quo. It will also help to mitigate the operational impacts on the UK Supreme Court and the High Court of Justiciary that would have arisen if the power to depart from retained EU case law were reserved solely to those courts. It will further assist those courts by providing prior judicial dialogue on these complex issues from the Court of Appeal level.
I am sure that your Lordships are familiar with the terminology but, first, I shall briefly explain what I mean by retained EU case law. Retained EU case law is defined in the 2018 Act as, broadly, any principles and decisions of the CJEU as they have effect in EU law prior to the end of the transition period. This includes cases which were referred to the CJEU by the UK, as well as those referred by other member states. This is a vast and complex body of case law that spans many different areas of law.
In amending the 2018 Act through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, Parliament provided the power to make regulations to extend the list of courts which may depart from retained EU case law, to set the test to be applied by those courts and to specify any considerations that courts should take into account in coming to such decisions. This instrument extends the list of courts that can depart from retained EU case law to: the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the Court Martial Appeal Court, the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland, the High Court of Justiciary, when sitting as a court of Appeal in relation to a compatibility issue or a devolution issue, and the Inner House of the Court of Session, the Lands Valuation Appeal Court and the Registration Appeal Court in Scotland.
The instrument also sets out that the test to be applied by these additional courts when deciding whether to depart from retained EU case law will be the same test used by the UK Supreme Court in deciding whether to depart from its own case law. This test is well established and is capable of being easily understood and applied without any further guidance. It is anticipated that applying the same test to that used by the UK Supreme Court will foster a consistent approach across the jurisdictions and, in turn, on appeal to the UK Supreme Court. There is a wealth of case law underpinning the UK Supreme Court’s test which has evolved over time to ensure that courts consider changing circumstances and modern public policy.
The Government have decided against specifying a list of factors to be considered by the courts with the power to depart from retained EU case law, as the UK Supreme Court’s test is underpinned by a significant amount of case law, which provides considerable guidance. The instrument does not change the operation of the doctrine of precedent, which, practically speaking, means that when a court reaches a decision on whether to depart from retained EU case law, that judgment has the same precedent status as other judgments from that court.
As required in statute, the Government have consulted senior judiciary across the UK, a consultation process that was also extended to the devolved Administrations, as well as to representatives across the legal services sector, businesses and other organisations, and was open to the public. The consultation ran from 2 July to 13 August, with a response published on 15 October. That consultation sought views on whether to extend the power to depart from retained EU case law to the Court of Appeal and its equivalents across the UK, or to the High Court and its UK equivalents.
Having considered the responses fully, the Government have concluded that extending the power to Court of Appeal level courts strikes the appropriate balance between enabling retained EU case law to evolve more quickly, where appropriate, and providing legal clarity and certainty. It also assists in managing the operational impacts by ensuring cases are considered in a timely way. Furthermore, extending the power at this level will mitigate the impacts of potentially large volumes of divergent decisions, both within and across the UK jurisdictions, as decisions of these courts are binding on themselves and courts below as well as being persuasive across the UK’s three legal systems. Where such divergence occurs, this can be resolved more quickly by the UK Supreme Court if it is not required to consider all questions of whether to depart from retained EU case law.
I know that there was significant interest from your Lordships when the power to make this statutory instrument was introduced during the passage of the 2020 Act. I hope that your Lordships will be reassured by the consultation that has taken place and the careful approach that is being taken in extending the power to Court of Appeal level courts only.
An impact assessment has been published alongside the consultation response. Any impact is heavily dependent on both litigant behaviour in bringing proceedings seeking a departure from retained EU case law and, of course, the outcome of that litigation. However, based on a qualitative assessment, we assess that any impact on an increase in case volume as a result of this instrument is manageable at Court of Appeal level, helps to maintain legal certainty and mitigates pressure on the UK Supreme Court.
This instrument enables our courts to be better able to consider whether to depart from retained EU case law than the status quo provided in the 2018 Act. Providing these seven courts with the ability to depart from retained EU case law will allow timely evolution of our case law. It will relieve pressure on the UK Supreme Court and avoid our case law becoming fossilised. We are taking an approach that balances the importance of legal clarity and certainty with the need for the law to evolve with changing circumstances.
Lord Beith (LD) [V]
My Lords, when the EU withdrawal agreement Bill was being considered in the House, the Constitution Committee had serious concerns about the provisions under which this statutory instrument is being made. We were concerned that the Bill left it to Ministers to decide which courts could depart from previous European case law on retained European law and what test they should apply when doing so. That has quite serious rule of law implications that were neatly illustrated by the Minister when he described the possibility of a range of factors being specified when courts are considering such matters, an option that helpfully, the Government in the end did not take. That is one of the good features of this statutory instrument.
These are not powers that we were content to leave in the hands of Ministers. There is the added problem that the powers could be extended to the lower courts whose judgments could not bind other courts—even to magistrates’ courts. This would lead to legal confusion. In a powerful debate in the House at Report, I moved an amendment drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that we would return to the matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, offered to table a compromise government amendment very much along the lines of this instrument, restricting the extension so that it would cover only the Appeal Court or its equivalents, and specifying that the test to be applied when deviating from previous case law was the same test that the Supreme Court would apply. But he was embarrassingly overruled by a higher authority in No. 10, apparently because the Prime Minister wanted no amendments to the Bill at all, presumably for broader political reasons.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, indicated in a speech in that debate that the Prime Minister had in fact committed himself in the election to every court in the land being able to deviate from retained EU law. Anyway, we won the vote, but it was overturned by the Commons, so we were left with Ministers holding the power to choose the courts to which this would be extended and to choose the test that would be applied. Everything would depend on the regulations. As the Minister has pointed out, there was a consultation that revealed differences of view. The results were open to different interpretation depending on how you count those respondents who wanted no deviation from previous case law. That is not my view. While based on precedent, law has to evolve over time. For my part, the statutory instrument brings us to the outcome that I sought in my amendment, albeit by a very long way round.
I accept that these provisions may have avoided what could have been a bottleneck in the Supreme Court, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, warned. However, I am bound to question some curiously chosen words in Paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum:
“Extending the power to this limited list of additional courts will help to achieve our aim of enabling appropriate and timely departure from retained EU case law.”
Is that phrase in place to please the Brexiteers? Is it meant to be a signal to the courts that they should deviate as much and as soon as possible?
If so, I think that it creates false expectations, because I do not think that that is what the courts will actually do. The scale of activity will depend on how much litigation is brought forward and the courts can be expected to abide to apply the test of the Supreme Court with due regard to the facts, to precedent, and to the need to keep the law up to date with changing circumstances. I do not believe that the courts will be drawn into a rush to get rid of as much European case law as possible as quickly as possible. However, all in all, I think that the instrument is what is needed.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, it was of great interest to me to listen to my noble and learned friend explain so clearly the origin and scope of this instrument. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, the House of Lords was very interested in this particular provision when it came forward in this year’s withdrawal Bill. The Prime Minister had apparently said during the election that every court would be able to entertain this question of whether a decision of the European Court which was part of the retained case law should be departed from.
This House noticed that the provision in the Bill did not contain any machinery for taking a case from, for example, the magistrates’ court to a court that could decide the issue. In the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, referred to—which I proposed—there was a provision for a method of doing that, so that the Prime Minister’s wish, or answer, that all courts would be able to do it would be met by, for example, the magistrates’ court referring the matter in the way that I had proposed to the Supreme Court or whichever court might then be able to deal with it.
That amendment was, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, passed by a substantial majority in this House but, because of the rush to get the withdrawal Act approved, it was decided to not give effect to it in the House of Commons. There is, therefore, no method in place for reaching from, for example, the magistrates’ court in England to the Court of Appeal. I raised this point with my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor when he sent me a copy of the instrument. The truth is that there is no way of doing that effectively.
This leaves me with a question which I would be glad if my noble and learned friend could answer. If a point is to be raised about the validity of a judgment of the European Court that is part of the reserved EU case law and it needs to be dealt with in a case coming forward in the magistrates’ court, would the magistrates’ court be allowed to consider that case at all, or is there some provision in the jurisdiction of the other courts to allow a case that would normally be within the magistrates’ court’s jurisdiction to be referred instead to another court that is not of the same level but which is able to deal with this particular problem? It was suggested to me that there are various methods of going from the lower courts to the higher court, but I am not aware—I would be glad if my noble and learned friend could make me aware—of whether there is a mechanism to get, for example, from the magistrates’ court in England to the Court of Appeal. If not, it means that the Prime Minister’s answer to the question at the election may not be open for a result at the moment unless and until primary legislation can be introduced in order to make such arrangements. I would have thought that such arrangements could possibly be made using the rule powers of the various rule-making committees, but I am not sure whether that it so. Anyway, I am glad to raise it in order that my noble and learned friend is able to deal with it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I think a Division is about to be called and I therefore recommend that we do not call the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, until after the Division in order not to have to interrupt him. Is the noble Lord content to wait until the Division has been completed?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is an allergy—an itch that has to be scratched. This bumbling Government are allergic to the very sound of the name “the European Court of Justice”. It sends a shiver down the spine—if they have one at all—of a significant section of the Conservative Party. I have never understood this, since, as I have pointed out on a number of previous occasions, the United Kingdom was remarkably successful in developing the procedures of that court and in conducting cases successfully before the court on behalf of the UK Government, with a success rate of over 90% of contested cases.
In 1966, Lord Gardiner, then Lord Chancellor, made a Statement on behalf of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords to the effect that the committee was prepared to modify its previous practice and to depart from a previous decision when it appeared right to do so. He added the very important rider:
“In this connection they will bear in mind the danger of disturbing retrospectively the basis on which contracts, settlements of property and fiscal arrangements have been entered into and also the especial need for certainty as to the criminal law.”—[Official Report, 26/7/1966; col. 677.]
Some time ago the Minister told us that that Statement is well understood; I am not so sure that that is right.
That need for certainty could not be more important than in the context of commercial dealings between this country and the EU, over which we are agonising at this crucial time—this very day. Retained EU law will remain part of our domestic law after the transition period, in five or six weeks’ time. What could be more disturbing to contractual arrangements, trade and to prosperity than to have differing interpretations of the same provisions, set out in the same terms, in both UK domestic law and EU law as it is understood by our near neighbours?
I have direct experience of the way in which the Judicial Committee, now the Supreme Court, exercised its power to modify a previous decision. In 1982, I appeared for the appellant before the Judicial Committee in the case of Caldwell. My case was that recklessness as an ingredient of a criminal offence involved a subjective state of mind. My argument was defeated by 3:2 in the Judicial Committee on the basis that recklessness could be established objectively even if the defendant gave no thought at all to the risk. Lord Diplock delivered the majority opinion but Lord Edmund-Davies was on my side. The result of the case drew intense academic criticism, led by Professor Glanville Williams, whom some of us will remember with affection, if only for his magisterial textbook on the criminal law. Some 20 years went by, until in the case of R v G&R, the Judicial Committee reversed that decision. Lord Bingham, who delivered the unanimous opinion of the committee, said:
“Despite its power under Practice Statement … [1966] … to depart from its earlier decisions, the House should be very slow to do so, not least in a context such as this.”
However, to return to the present and being “reassured by the consultation”—I take it that that is a touch of wry Scots humour on the part of the Minister. From the Government’s point of view it was a complete failure. The Explanatory Memorandum shows that only 20% of the consultees agreed with this proposed extension of the power to depart from retained EU case law to other courts and tribunals. Further, only 9% believed that these proposals strike the right balance between legal certainty and the evolution of the law. Only 5% thought it maintained the necessary degree of predictability in the law and provided certainty.
On the contrary, a decisive majority of those consulted about the changes proposed in this statutory instrument were against any change at all, on the basis that it was a recipe for uncertainty. Why did the Government go on with this SI? Allergy—it is that nagging itch.
The clue to the problems which arise is in paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states:
“Without the ability to depart from retained EU case law, there is a risk that retained EU law remains tied to an interpretation from the Court of Justice of the European Union that is arguably no longer appropriate in the UK.”
I stress “arguably”. I was wondering whether I should say anything adverse to this SI at all, since it will undoubtedly make good money for lawyers. The Minister will know that certainty of the law assists the settling of disputes without litigation. Uncertainty breeds litigation, from which, frequently, only the lawyers benefit. I would have thought that, under current practice, the Supreme Court’s power in the ultimate to depart from European case law would be more than enough to satisfy the Tory itch in the rare cases where the need for departure arises, but now litigants will argue at Court of Appeal level for a departure from settled EU case law. If the protagonist of a departure is successful, it is inevitable that the losing party will take the case for a final decision to the Supreme Court, which could hardly refuse leave to appeal if our Court of Appeal or its equivalent had introduced an ambiguity into the law. The changes will not reduce the burden on the Supreme Court, as has been suggested.
Whoever drafted this SI and the Explanatory Memorandum is not in touch with the real legal world, the world that responded to the consultation. Paragraph 10.9 of the memorandum states:
“The risk of driving large volumes of cases and legal uncertainty was the main reason cited in opposition to this proposed approach. It was also noted that the risk of divergence in decisions between jurisdictions was greater with this approach.”
The Bar Council submitted to the consultation that
“departing from the CJEU precedent is pointless unless the lower court has power to depart from the domestic precedent as well—but a power to depart from precedents set by high courts (or, in the case of the Court of Appeal, its own past judgments) would be a major disruption of the system of precedent on which legal certainty depends in a common-law system.”
In response, the Government have preferred specifically to stick with the current system of domestic precedent, thereby making the policy behind this SI, to quote the Bar Council, “pointless”.
Another area which introduces a sense of unreality is the courts to which this power to depart is extended. I know nothing of the land valuation court in Scotland nor am I anxious to know, but, as chair of the Association of Military Court Advocates, I cannot conceive how the decisions of the European Court of Justice are relevant to courts martial proceedings in any way whatever, yet the Court Martial Appeal Court heads the list. Was the drafter of this SI confusing the European Court of Human Rights, which has had a great deal to say on military justice and, as a result of its decisions, has considerably improved our system, with the European Court of Justice? It is frequently done. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me. I do not suppose that he has, as yet, caught the itch.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Labour Party does not support these regulations. When responding to the government consultation, both the Bar Council and the Law Society expressed a strong preference for the power to depart from retained EU case law to be reserved only to the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. In its response to the proposed changes, the Law Society clearly stated that
“the power to depart from retained case law should not be extended to UK courts … beyond the Supreme Court ... Any change from this position constitutes a major shift in the administration of justice. This could result in a lack of legal certainty through the emergence of novel judgments that are either not binding on other courts or are inconsistent with precedent.”
Those serious concerns should not be overlooked by the Government.
On 2 July this year, the Government launched a consultation on whether the extension would be the right thing to do. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, went through the findings of that consultation, and he teased the Minister about his wry Scottish sense of humour, because of course the results of the consultation were very different and far more negative than he intimated.
My honourable friend Alex Cunningham, when speaking in the other place, explained that granting the power to depart from retained EU case law to the lower courts is likely to encourage litigation by parties who hope to overturn an earlier judgment that relied on EU case law, and subsequently will increase the volume of cases. That will inevitably put additional pressure on the courts, which already face a significant backlog due to both the pandemic and the cuts that we have seen in the courts system over the past 10 years.
Both the legal sector and trade unions expressed their opposition to the Government’s proposals. Unions are hugely concerned about the impact that a mass departure from retained EU case law would have on workers’ rights. Unions were also clear that the Government should not go ahead with the plan because it would undermine the doctrine of precedent and cause significant uncertainty and disruption to both employers and employees.
We accept that the courts should have the power to divert from EU case law vested in UK law, but that power should remain exclusively with the Supreme Court. We request that the Minister address all the concerns expressed by the legal profession and the trade unions. Will he outline why the Government have chosen to proceed with these regulations? Can he help outline what they plan to do to ensure that the courts under the Supreme Court are able to operate effectively, and to ensure that the changes do not simply result in increased litigation and, ultimately, in even more appeals to the Supreme Court? What reassurance can he give to trade unions that their fears are unfounded and that workers’ rights will not be compromised as a result of the changes proposed in this statutory instrument?
We believe that, based on current evidence, the Government cannot truly justify the changes brought in by the statutory instrument. The Labour Party has sought to work constructively with the Government as they have embarked on their programme of introducing necessary secondary legislation across all areas for use after the transition period. However, on this occasion, we do not feel that the changes to be implemented by these regulations are justified. We will not vote against the regulations, but we do not support them.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate and I would like to respond to the points made.
First, I acknowledge the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, who pointed out that consultation has taken place. I emphasise that the terms of the legislation seek to strike a balance which is intended to prevent an overwhelming rush of work to the court at the highest level. We also intend to maintain judicial independence.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern raised the matter of the approach which he had urged at an earlier stage whereby there should be a means of referral from the lower courts to the higher—to those courts which are capable of taking a decision in these matters. There is no provision for any courts to refer below the Court of Appeal, including the magistrates’ court. Matters will find their way into the appellate level of courts capable of hearing these matters in the normal way by decisions being taken and themselves appealed against. It seems very likely that appeals in these contexts would be more or less inevitable given the novelty of the situation but also acknowledging the likely temporary nature of the situation as the law recovers full independence.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke about there being an allergy on the part of the Government and the Conservative Party against mention of the CJEU. Having gone over my notes and counted four occasions when I mentioned that court in the first two pages of my notes, I am driven to conclude that the noble Lord was speaking figuratively, although at the end of his speech he said that I had perhaps not yet developed the allergy.
On the matter of the response of the consultees, the noble Lord said that I might perhaps be exercising something of a sense of humour when I spoke positively of it, given the overall terms in which the consultation had been responded to. However, I take from the consultation that there was support for the cautious approach taken in terms of the SI, balancing competing needs between access to the courts, the need to avoid a particular higher level of court being overwhelmed with applications and the need for legal clarity. In the circumstances, it seems inevitable that there will be some increase in the burden of work on the higher courts resulting from the unprecedented decision of this country to leave the European Union. That degree of disruption is, as I say, inevitable. However, I submit that the terms of this SI admit a useful and productive method by which that new burden of work can most readily be assimilated over time.
On the noble Lord’s point about the range of courts capable of taking on this function with regard to the statutory instrument, he made reference to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court in Scotland. The seven courts were chosen specifically for their appellate status, the availability of appeals to them and the absence of availability of appeals from them.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, indicated the Labour Party’s position and sought reassurance with regard to the concerns that were raised by trade unions and the legal profession. Nothing in this statutory instrument seeks to impose at all on any of the courts any view which the Government may hold. Indeed, the statutory instrument may be read as emphasising the importance that the Government place on the independence of the courts and of judicial discretion. Other than through reiteration of the 1966 test laid down by the House of Lords, there is no prescriptive list of factors to be taken into account by the courts taking on this function.
The Government see this instrument as an important part of the United Kingdom’s future standing to ensure that more courts are able to depart from retained European Union case law but in a timely and appropriate manner. We consider this to be a proportionate and sensible approach to this unprecedented and novel situation as the United Kingdom becomes the first country to leave the EU. We consider that extending the power to courts at the Court of Appeal level, to the Court of Appeal and to its equivalents, strikes the right balance between the provision of legal clarity and certainty and enabling the law to appeal more flexibly.
I am grateful for your Lordships’ learned contributions to the debate. I hope that your Lordships agree that the statutory instrument is a necessary one, therefore I commend this draft instrument to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The Grand Committee now stands adjourned until 6.15 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Everyone taking part is here in person, but I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise from remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same. The time limit is one hour.
Business and Planning Act 2020 (London Spatial Development Strategy) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the Business and Planning Act 2020 (London Spatial Development Strategy) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before this House on 2 November. If approved and made, they would roll forward the existing temporary disapplication of the legal requirements for the Mayor of London to keep his current spatial development strategy available for public inspection and to provide a hard copy on request. Of course, the strategy must be available for inspection free of charge online.
These regulations are part of a wider package of government measures to ensure that the English town planning system can continue to play its role and operate safely and efficiently during the coronavirus pandemic. The Plain English translation of the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy is the London Plan—that is how it is referred to in local government.
The rules that authorities must follow when preparing plans, including consultation and the documents which must be made available at each stage, are set out in law. Earlier this year, in response to the coronavirus pandemic and with the support of stakeholders, the Government amended these rules. In the interests of public safety and to ensure that plans could progress through the system and support economic recovery, we made some changes.
We temporarily removed requirements for authorities to make plans and other related documents available for inspection at council offices and other places, since these offices are either closed or restricted in terms of who can access them. We also removed the requirement for hard copies of these documents to be provided on request. Documents are still required to be made available on the authority’s website.
We also published government guidance on how authorities should consider how they can continue to promote effective community engagement by means which are reasonably practicable, in particular, to reach those sections of the community that do not have internet access. Because of the current level of uncertainty about the future spread of coronavirus, we have proposed to roll these measures forward for 12 months, from the point they expire on 31 December 2020.
My officials have discussed the current measures with the Local Government Association’s planning advisory service and the Planning Officer Society. Neither organisation had heard of any issues or concerns. It is important to stress that we all hope the Greater London Authority and other authorities will be able to discharge these duties sooner than 31 December 2021.
These changes do not prevent authorities displaying documents in public buildings or sending out hard copies. We are simply continuing the existing disapplication of the former requirement while coronavirus remains prevalent. These are proportionate and pragmatic changes that have been widely welcomed by public and private sector alike. I commend this instrument to the House.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulescoomb, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for setting out the purpose of these regulations. At this point, I always look with admiration at the skills of many Members of your Lordships’ House who manage to deliver a witty, entertaining speech on a measure of the type before us today. I do not have those skills and I have no questions to ask. I am happy with the regulations.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark—I think he has an immense degree of humour. I have really enjoyed my time at the Dispatch Box, and in this rather strange cubicle, because he does have a great sense of humour. Most importantly, he cares, and he wants the best legislation to come out of this place. It has been a pleasure working with him so far. I agree that this measure is very uncontroversial; we can both conclude that it is good that this is taking place and that it is proportionate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them sensibly short and confined to just two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers also be brief.
Covid-19: Vaccines and Medical Equipment
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goudie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure equitable access (1) to vaccines, and (2) to medical equipment, to address the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is at the forefront of efforts to drive global collaboration on the development of new vaccines and has committed to procuring a Covid-19 vaccine for the UK, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories. We are collaborating with international partners on vaccine development, manufacturing scale-up and future distribution. The NHS has allocated and assigned more than 28,000 items of critical care equipment across the UK and Crown dependencies and the remainder is available for allocation across England according to NHS regions, based on future need.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, equitable access to vaccines has a number of dimensions and all must be secured across the world and in the UK. The Covid-19 pandemic respects no lines: if we neglect the developing world, we neglect ourselves. A lack of global access will hamper global health and development. Inequitable access would impede the unity of the United Kingdom.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The UK has pledged more than £1 billion in aid to counter health, humanitarian and economic risks, including £829 million on the development and delivery of vaccines. I thank all those involved in the COVAX Facility, a multinational mechanism administered by Gavi which pools funding. The COVAX scheme is an emphatically impactful scheme. Britain has taken a leadership role in it, and I thank all those involved in its development.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is essential that those at economic and social disadvantage be given proper access to a functioning distribution strategy. Can the Minister reassure the 200,000 people with blood cancer in the “extremely vulnerable” classification that they can rely on proper evaluation of the suitability of vaccines, treatments and equipment for their distinctive condition, and provide some insight into how construction of the prioritisation list will be undertaken to address the acute problem those in such circumstances face? In this regard, would the Minister be prepared to meet with representatives of Blood Cancer UK to take these matters forward?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point about those with blood cancer. In fact, many who are in the “extremely vulnerable” group have conditions that may or may not be affected by the vaccine. We are working extremely hard to accommodate their particular needs. The JCVI has an extremely thoughtful prioritisation process. I would be happy to meet the group the noble Lord describes.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I warmly welcome the agreement that was reached yesterday between Her Majesty’s Government and the three devolved Governments on Christmas household arrangements. That is a good example of working together across the United Kingdom. I press the Government to continue that approach with the rollout of vaccines across the United Kingdom. Nothing would be worse than to have one area or region ahead of another when it comes to vaccinating clinical staff, care workers and vulnerable people.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I entirely endorse the sentiment the noble Lord expresses. I offer my profound thanks to the devolved authorities for the immense spirit of collaboration which has characterised the response to the pandemic. Often, it would seem from the headlines that the nations are at odds with each other; that is not my experience. The Christmas negotiations he cites are a very good example of that, and I hope the vaccination arrangements will be the finest moment.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, on 25 September the JCVI reported the serious risk of disease and mortality from Covid according to deprivation and ethnicity. These issues have to be taken into consideration in the vaccination programme, so why does the present list of priorities for the vaccine ignore those factors completely?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right that deprivation and ethnicity are key considerations in the morbidity of Covid; we are all acutely aware of them. The JCVI has looked extremely closely at a variety of different models for prioritising vaccination. Prioritisation based largely on age gives the most accurate and thoughtful prioritisation of the vaccine and is also simple to understand and deliver. That is why it has gone down that route.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate AstraZeneca and Oxford University on their triumph in developing this vaccine. I hope that my noble friend agrees that without the exceptional input from the private sector, this game-changing treatment simply could not have been developed. What plans do the Government have to cope with the anti-vaxxers? Some of them will simply be individuals exercising their right to say no, but others will be deliberately spreading lies and misinformation that can only undermine trust in the vaccine. Do the Government have any specific plans to deal with this challenge?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have extremely detailed and energetic plans to deal with misinformation, which is based on confusion, and disinformation, which is based on malice. It would not be right for me to go through those plans in detail at the Dispatch Box, but I reassure my noble friend that they are in place and are being characterised by a degree of consideration for those who have concerns about the vaccine. It is a grave undertaking to have an injection such as that. People naturally have searching questions they would like to ask, and we are trying to meet those questions with a degree of thoughtfulness and to answer them in the spirit in which they are asked.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, my question follows on well from the previous one. The development of highly effective vaccines against Covid-19 is a remarkable scientific advance. It is crucial that the public have absolute confidence and trust in their use, which they should. This will be reinforced when the scientifically-led process of market approval by the regulator and scrutiny by the wider science community is completed, following publication of the peer-reviewed data. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no political interference in any way to speed up that process before the vaccines are made available to the wider public?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the opportunity to make this crystal clear: the MHRA is an independent regulator, its work on vaccine approval has no political interference whatever and there is no pressure on either time or outcome. I pay tribute to those at the MHRA, who are extremely dedicated to the cause. We are going to approach the entire process with a spirit of transparency for exactly the reasons the noble Lord identified. Public trust is essential, and the only way we can gain the public’s trust is by being open and honest about how we go about these approvals. That is the way we will pursue the process.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, on COVAX, which the noble Lord mentioned, has there been any contact with the new US Administration to encourage its participation? Will the UK use its position within Gavi to ensure that the facility pays no more than cost price for future doses of Covid vaccines? What assessment has the noble Lord made of the impact of the further and substantial cut to ODA, after the £2.9 billion reduction earlier this year, on our global response to the pandemic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, our forthcoming chairmanship of the G7, at the beginning of next year, is giving us a good opportunity to engage with our partners, including the United States, on issues such as the vaccine. We are grateful to Gavi, which is doing a terrific job at buying the vaccine; it is being characterised by what I would term commercial savviness. The spending review implications for ODA have yet to be published fully, but I reassure the noble Lord that funding the global response to the pandemic and the equitable distribution of vaccines, in particular, remains a massive commitment for the Government.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, notwithstanding the good use of UK aid via the WHO’s COVAX initiative, evidence shows that treatment providers and Governments have had to grapple with intellectual property barriers to essential products such as therapeutics, respirators and reagents for test kits. Do the Government maintain the position they held at the WTO TRIPS council meeting of 16 October that IP barriers to the Covid-19 response are hypothetical and will not stand in the way of scaling up vaccine manufacture?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the question of vaccine intellectual property is a delicate one because, as was mentioned earlier, we rely on the private sector for a lot of funding and research, and for supplying the research. So, we are respectful of intellectual property as a principle. None the less, we are also grateful to vaccine manufacturers that have taken an open-source approach to vaccine intellectual property and have made local manufacturing available, so that there can be an extremely wide distribution of vaccines, including to those in the developing world who would otherwise struggle.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Wales: Customs Sites
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Humphreys
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in (1) finding potential, and (2) establishing new, lorry customs sites that are close to ports, in particular Holyhead, and near strategic road networks in Wales, before 31 December.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, for January 2021, HMRC decided that Warrington and Birmingham inland border facilities will provide interim transit facilities for goods requiring inspection through Holyhead. Holyhead will also have a limited facility for ATA Carnets. Neither Birmingham nor Warrington is near capacity; they are on the strategic road network for traffic using the mainland as a land bridge. For July 2021, an enduring site has been identified, and we are moving towards completion as quickly as possible.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
Given that we now know that the border in the Irish Sea will be moved temporarily from Holyhead to Warrington and Birmingham, in a move described by an industry expert as a recipe for smuggling, and, given that Holyhead has been described as a “soft spot” for people trafficking, how will the movement of goods and people be monitored on the 100-mile journey to Warrington, or on the 175-mile journey to Birmingham, for their customs checks?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, we absolutely accept that Warrington and Birmingham will be interim solutions to the challenge of having these facilities much nearer to Holyhead, and we are working at pace to deliver that.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend share my disappointment that it has not been possible to find a site local to Holyhead for customs checks, which clearly will be needed when shipments come in from the Republic of Ireland and could create jobs and boost the economy on Anglesey and the surrounding areas?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I am pleased to tell my noble friend that yesterday we agreed verbal heads of terms for a site on the island of Anglesey. It is not a done deal by any means, but I am confident that we will do that deal, and that it will give the answers that my noble friend is asking for.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, uncertainty about how Holyhead as a major gateway out of the European Union will operate raises concerns about jobs and livelihoods for local people. Can the Minister say if the levelling-up agenda applies to Wales, too, or is it just for Northern Ireland? Does he agree that this is an opportunity to help the local economy and Wales as a whole by ensuring that customs checks are carried out on the island, as well as alleviating security concerns inherent in checks done as far away as Warrington and Birmingham?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord, which is why we have made the decision to move at pace to acquire the site on the island of Anglesey. That will bring jobs to the island and will ensure that security checks are as close to the port as possible.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, at all stages of the Brexit process we have urged the Government to formalise their engagement with the devolved Administrations, for example by putting the Joint Ministerial Committee on a statutory footing. Ministers said that this was unnecessary, yet the Welsh Government say that Whitehall made a formal approach regarding an inland site to serve Holyhead only in August. Why do the Government find it so hard to work constructively and proactively with others? Does it stem from the Prime Minister’s recent and very damaging comments on devolution?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I want to reassure the noble Lord that we have had extremely collaborative and constructive discussions with the Welsh Administration; indeed, it was only yesterday that I agreed with the Welsh Minister to go for the site for which we agreed the verbal heads of terms yesterday. I gave that choice to the Welsh Minister and I was delighted when he agreed with the proposal that we put forward to him. So we are working very closely with the devolved authorities, and, as I say, with Wales in particular I have had a very constructive relationship.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
Yesterday the French border control started trialling new controls, and immediately a five-mile lorry queue built up on the M20. If lorries to Holyhead have to travel via Warrington or Birmingham, how much longer do the Government believe the additional journey is likely to take, and what estimate have they made of the percentage increase in food costs as a result?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, if 100% of the Holyhead traffic had to go to Birmingham, it would take up 40% of Birmingham’s capacity. If it had to go 100% to Warrington, it would take up 20% of its capacity. So we are very unlikely to see any congestion at those two interim inland ports. In terms of distance delay, the Warrington site is located for those trucks going to the eastern ports and the Birmingham site is located for those going to the short-straits ports, so we do not anticipate delay or cost in relation to that.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am sure the Minister accepts that Warrington is totally inappropriate, and I am glad that a location has been found on Anglesey and hope that it moves forward very quickly. But perhaps I may press the Minister on another question. As I understand it, the digital infrastructure for border checks at Holyhead from 1 January still has not been fully tested, and, if things go wrong, it will have massive implications for the flow of trade and for local congestion. What urgent measures are being taken to deal with that scenario?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that we are on track to have the digital infrastructure up and running by 1 January. I completely accept that we are running on a very tight timetable, but if we take, for example, the GVMS system—which I think is the one that he is referring to—that has been available for testing by hauliers and carriers since September and will be released to all hauliers on 8 December.
Lord German (LD)
Putting aside the issue of having to drive 100 miles or 175 miles in order to have your load checked, meaning that you have to go to one of two places, I am interested to know the Minister’s answer to the question that was put to him earlier about working at pace. Am I right to understand that the first communication on the siting of a potential site on the Isle of Anglesey was yesterday; and, if so, is that what the Government call working at pace?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I can reassure the noble Lord that we have been working on this solution for some time. There was an alternative proposal several months ago that most people were in favour of, which was RAF Mona, but unfortunately that was not acceptable to the local community. But, no, we have not just started work on this this week. In terms of the inland sites, to reassure the noble Lord, not every lorry has to go to them. About 2% of loads will be diverted for formal checks. So, although I accept that in the interim, before the enduring site is created on the island, there will be some inconvenience, it will be only for a very small number of loads.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, concerns were raised this month about the readiness of IT systems, including the Customs Declaration Service, in oral evidence to the EU Select Committee’s EU Goods Sub-Committee. Is it the case that key personnel for developing the CDS are still being recruited? Does the Minister agree that, the rest of the UK aside, the particular problems facing Wales will be compounded if IT systems are not ready on time?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, the CDS is the system that is being rolled out specifically for Northern Ireland from 1 January, because that is the one that enables a dual-tariff mechanism. The development is well under way. We have one or two more upgrades to make to it, with the last one on 21 December. I am not going to pretend that that is not tight, but the development is moving at pace, and the most recent upgrade enabled the dual-tariff operating model to work. The CSPs—the community service providers that provide the link into the CDS for traders and hauliers—are working at pace. The main one, the Trader Support Service, is working at particular pace, and I am confident that the system will be connected by the due date.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, further to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the head of Stena Line’s head of UK Port Authorities told the BBC yesterday that it was preparing for no deal and was confident that it was in the right place for that. As far as I am aware, the Government are still looking for a deal. That means that big companies such as Stena, and also small companies, will have to deal with the uncertainty, with 36 days to go. What help is being provided to enable small independent businesses, in particular, to interact with that extremely late-arriving IT system?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, the difference for the vast majority of traders between a deal and no deal is simply the level of tariffs that will have to be put into the HMRC and DIT systems. So their readiness needs to be at the same level, whether it is a deal or no deal.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now move to the third Oral Question.
Nuclear Weapons
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the ratification by 50 countries of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, what plans they have to review their policies towards nuclear weapons.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government keep their nuclear deterrents policy and posture under continual review, taking into consideration their commitments to maintaining the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent for as long as the global security situation demands, and to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. There is common ground with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons because that is the shorter term goal, too. However, with the collapse of so many non-proliferation treaties and the failure of the 2015 round of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to reach a consensus, is the Minister confident that the next round of the non-proliferation treaty, which must take place before April, will reach some consensus as a way forward? The 122 countries that signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons are desperate that nuclear weapons states are not making sufficient efforts to fulfil their obligations under pillar 3. What dialogues have the Government had to date on achieving a consensus and success at the next round of the NPT?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The Government remain constantly engaged. There is probably a fundamental difference of philosophy between an attitude towards a non-proliferation treaty and an attitude towards a prohibition treaty. Certainly, the Government believe that the non-proliferation treaty has been successful because it is built on foundations of consensus and delivers tangible benefits for all its signatories. It continues to make a significant contribution to international security and stability, and that is what this Government want to promote and support.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, recently I and a number of other Bishops issued a public letter welcoming the important ratification of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Can the Minister comment on the moral inconsistency, whereby we have rightly taken a stand on outlawing cluster bombs and landmines but not outlawing nuclear weapons, which, as we know, are far more destructive when they are used?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
At the heart of the question asked by the right reverend Prelate is the relevance of the term “deterrent”. Very often people measure the deterrent a failure because it has not been used. I would argue the exact opposite—that the measure of a deterrent’s success is that it has not been used, because it is doing its job of deterring.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
Can the Minister confirm the Government’s continued adherence to a policy of continuous at sea deterrents—namely, one of our Trident submarines, permanently on patrol and ready to reply, should our supreme national interest so require?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Yes, I can confirm to my noble friend our commitment to the continuous at sea deterrent. When the Prime Minister launched the integrated review, he specifically reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to that deterrent and the UK’s support of NATO.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, bearing in mind how much the cost of the nuclear deterrent has destabilised the defence budget, have HMG considered relieving it of this cost as part of the welcome recent addition to the resources allocated to defence and security?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I would respond to the noble Lord by observing that the Government recognise that the cost of maintaining and renewing the deterrent is substantial. Equally, the Government are clear that the safety and security of the United Kingdom is a long-term issue and immediate economic pressures are not sufficient rationale for taking risks with the security of the nation and British public far into the future. The costs have been and will continue to be subjected to cross-government scrutiny, but the underlying rationale for the deterrent is the safety of the country and its citizens.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
I refer noble Lords to my interests as reported in the register, as chair of the Nuclear Education Trust. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, the TPNW comes into effect on 22 January 2021. The list of prohibitions includes use, stockpiling, testing, production, manufacture, stationing and installation of nuclear weapons. In that context, can the Minister tell us what current government thinking is about the possibility of defence diversification to provide alternative good-quality jobs for those currently engaged in the process of replacing the existing nuclear arsenal? We know that science and industry can respond very quickly when necessary, as we have seen during the Covid pandemic.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I simply observe that the commitment to the deterrent is very significant in terms of defence capability, planning and cost, and is a long-term commitment. We deploy our best scientific and technical skills to that programme, and there is no proposal to distract from that activity.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister suggested that there is probably a different philosophy between those who believe in a non-proliferation regime and those who believe in a prohibition regime. Can she tell the House what work the Government are doing to take us down the nuclear ladder and reduce the amount of nuclear capabilities, because surely the aim we all have is a multilateral solution to ending nuclear weapons?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Let me offer some cheer to the noble Baroness by agreeing with her last point. The difficulty lies not so much in the objective, which is shared by many people, but in the journey to reach it. That is why the United Kingdom believes that the non-proliferation treaty not only offers focus but is a treaty entered into by all the nuclear states. I am not aware of any nuclear state joining the prohibition treaty. It is entered into because those nuclear states believe that the non-proliferation treaty provides focus and verification, and that it has a record of delivering.
Lord Bates (Con)
On 24 January 2021, it will be 75 years since the General Assembly of the United Nations first pledged to rid the world of nuclear weapons, while meeting at Central Hall, Westminster. Is my noble friend aware that many of us who have argued vigorously against unilateral nuclear disarmament feel passionately about the need for greater progress in multilateral disarmament? I welcome the UK’s leadership in reducing our nuclear stockpile. Will the Government use the upcoming 75th anniversary to urge other nuclear states to follow suit?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As always, my noble friend makes an interesting and informed contribution. He underlines my earlier point about why we have the deterrent and what the test of a successful deterrent is. I assure him that the United Kingdom Government support multilateral nuclear disarmament, but we believe that the non-proliferation treaty is the most effective means of progressing that objective.
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
We welcome the long overdue commitment on defence spending announced last week but, according to the National Audit Office, poor management of Britain’s nuclear weapons programme has led to infrastructure projects being delayed by six years and costs increasing by £1.3 billion. Can the Minister say how much of the £16 billion increase in spending will be used to complete the nuclear programme upgrades?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I cannot attach specific sums of money to the particular components to which the noble Lord refers. He will understand the Government’s commitment to the Dreadnought programme, an extensive, ambitious and challenging programme. We remain on track to deliver the first of class into service in the early 2030s, which we will do within the costs envelope announced in the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015. That estimated the cost to be £31 billion and set aside a £10 billion contingency fund.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
Which makes for better policy, and why, when there are force expansions by adversaries in capability, capacity, doctrine and battle-readiness: on the one hand, reinforcing our seat on the Security Council, NATO leverage and special relationship status, or, on the other, recognising our new status as a lesser-tier country but with a strategy of balancing the extent of the threat with nuclear disarmament and adopting more of a practical focus on IT capabilities and retaining 0.7% as our foreign aid contribution?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Responding from the perspective of defence, I do not accept the premise of the noble Viscount’s question. When we are dealing with threats to security and the safety of our country and our citizens, we go down all routes—security routes, MoD roots and diplomatic routes—and they are all vital. The recent settlement offered by the Government to the MoD reflects the importance that we attach to that.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19: Vaccination Prioritisation
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that high-risk adults under the age of 65 are prioritised for access to any Covid-19 vaccination ahead of adults less at risk who are over the age of 65.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has found that mortality increases exponentially with age and has published interim advice accordingly. An age-based programme captures many with underlying conditions. None the less, the sub-committee is reviewing evidence on clinical risk factors, including the clinically extremely vulnerable, and the committee will update its advice if necessary after review.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for his Answer. As someone who has been shielding since early March, I celebrate those involved in producing the vaccines in such a short time. However, I am concerned to learn that those under 65 in the clinically high-risk categories have been given a lower priority for the vaccine, knowing that 59% of people who have died from the coronavirus have been high-risk disabled people. Can the Minister please provide the JCVI’s evidence that informed the Government’s decision that those in high-risk categories under 65 are less vulnerable to the virus? Disabled people tell me that they have not felt shielded or protected throughout this pandemic, and this priority decision seems to confirm that belief. I urge the Government to think again.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that no final decisions have been made; this is only interim advice. I point out in particular that the behaviours of individual vaccines might be quite different for different groups of people. It is only when we have the final phase 3 data on the vaccines that we will be able to make the decisions that she alludes to. We are considering the extremely vulnerable carefully. As I mentioned, a review is under way to see whether clinical factors should play a greater role in prioritisation.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. Motor neurone disease is an example of a fatal illness with a very short life expectancy after diagnosis. The Minister might well have seen recent publicity about the case of a six year-old child being unable to attend school in case he brings the Covid-19 virus home to his dad, who is living with motor neurone disease. I hope the Minister will agree that no family should be in the position of having to choose between their child attending school and the risk of shortening the already short lifespan of his father. Will he further agree that people living with motor neurone disease, as well as those with many other life-limiting illnesses, must be on the priority list for very early vaccination?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I ask noble Lords to keep their questions short.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I hear loud and clear the conundrum expressed by the noble Lord. These prioritisation questions are very difficult. I hear his plea loud and clear and I undertake that these kinds of considerations will be considered in the prioritisation process.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
What provision is being made for another group who feel totally forgotten by this Government—namely, extremely vulnerable children, whether they have medical conditions or physical or learning disabilities, many of whom have been unable to access carers or schools since March? When is the review that the Minister just spoke about likely to publish its results?
Lord Bethell (Con)
It will not be possible to publish any results until we have the clear data on the vaccines. Individual vaccines may behave quite differently with different groups of people. There may be some vaccines that work well with the elderly, some that work well with those with clinical conditions and some that work well with children. It is only when we know that data that the final prioritisation can be published.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, on 12 November I asked my noble friend’s ministerial colleague, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, if he would recommend to the JCVI that rough sleepers and those who work with them should be a priority for vaccination. He said he would. Does that remain the case, and will they indeed get priority?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend has made the case for rough sleepers extremely well. It is one that we are deeply concerned about. When it comes to the prioritisation list, what has been published so far is an interim and indicative list. It will be reviewed, and a more detailed list will be published in time.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
As the Government keep the priority list under review, will they also look at the results of the New York vaccine rollout prioritisation? Younger adults who have been shielding are often already on a list, are at high risk and have children at school or college who are also their carers. These children are already stressed, if they attend education, knowing that they risk being asymptomatic virus carriers into the home and that Covid could kill their parent or sibling.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for suggesting the New York precedent. It is not one that I was aware of and I will look into it. I reassure her that we are liaising with all our international partners over the vaccine rollout to ensure that we put in the best possible practice that we can.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have read the JCVI priority list. As the Minister has indicated, some granularity is going to be vital. There is so far no mention of vulnerable BAME communities, who have borne the disproportionate burden of the pandemic. How will the Government approach those vulnerabilities in setting the priorities and their implementation?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the underlying principles of the advice of the JCVI are to reduce mortality, to improve population health by reducing serious disease and to protect the NHS and the social care system. The basic insight is that the risk of serious disease and death from Covid increases exponentially with age and increases in those with a number of underlying health conditions. Those are the basic principles of the interim advice and they will evolve over time.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, what consideration will be given to the vaccination of up to 250,000 care assistants employed by disabled people under the direct payments scheme who are not on the radar of any care providers or local authorities?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness makes the case extremely well for care providers. The prioritised list starts currently with older adult residents in care homes and care home workers, but she makes the case for the 250,000 who may not be on that principal list. That is something that I will take away with me.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my voice to the plea that those sleeping rough on our streets are not forgotten when vaccination occurs. I ask the Minister to rule out any government-assisted moves to stop people who decide, just as they do not want vaccination for flu, that they do not want to be vaccinated for Covid from travelling, certainly within the UK.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I hear loud and clear the case for rough sleepers made by both the noble Baroness and my noble friend. The case was made to my colleague, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, as well. That is a really important part of the vaccination programme and we will look into the most effective way of doing it. On the noble Baroness’s second point, I am not aware of any moves to try to limit or create mandatory situations for vaccines within the four nations.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
Might my noble friend consider setting up a network to catch and bring back into circulation those young people technically in care between the ages of 14 and 21 who have none the less been trafficked out of their unmonitored council care homes, given that the vaccination publicity is so enormous that they might well be able to be tempted back into life again?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the vaccination holds the prospect of returning to some form of normality very quickly. It is exactly the kind of situation that my noble friend points out that will be most welcome. There are a large number of people in various types of care who have not been able to be looked after in the way that they might have been previously. It is extremely valuable that the vaccine will be able to return people to that kinds of support, which they both deserve and need.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, shows very clearly that flexibility will be needed, and I think the Government are hearing that. Now that we have three vaccines, including the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, how soon does the Minister think we will be able to roll out vaccinations at a target of 1 million a day? Will he confirm that target? Will that be from January onwards? In the meantime, the need for rapid mass antigen lateral flow testing is all the greater.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me to commit to schedules that I am simply not in a position to commit to, I am afraid to say. The performance of the various vaccines is extremely complex: each one of them needs a different delivery plan. In collaboration with the NHS, we are putting in place an extremely energetic and thoughtful deployment programme. Those in charge have been instructed to have that ready to start from 1 December, but I will not hide it from the House that it may well be after the new year that the very large numbers begin. I reassure the House that we are super-focused on this deployment plan, and, as soon as the vaccines become available, we will be trying to get them to the public as soon as we can.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and that brings us to the end of Question Time.
International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015
Baroness Sheehan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to amend the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I cannot speculate ahead of the Chancellor’s Statement, which I believe he is currently giving in another place. The Government remain firmly committed to helping the world’s poorest people. We are always looking at how the aid budget is spent to ensure that it serves the UK’s priorities and represents value for money.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, whatever the outcome of the Chancellor’s statement, the target of 0.7% of GNI to help the world’s poorest is a proud Lib Dem achievement in coalition, spearheaded in your Lordships’ House very ably, if I may say so, by my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed. It serves moral, economic and political imperatives. Polling shows that it is not the British people pushing for cuts to the aid budget; it is ideologues within the governing party and a weak Prime Minister who seems unable to deny them anything.
I have two questions. First, does the Minister agree that, if there is a willingness to break international law, as set out in Part 5 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, coupled with a willingness to break a manifesto pledge on international aid, this is not a good look for global Britain as a “force for good”? Secondly, how does he think that the £4 billion cut to the aid budget, scrutinised to within an inch of its life, compares to the £12 billion haemorrhaged over the last five months by the Government’s test and trace programme, which is tainted by failure and mired in fraud and corruption?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to pay tribute to her noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, who took this Bill through your Lordships’ House. She is right to say that it is a proud achievement of the coalition Government, composed of both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. This is an issue on which all parties have worked over many years. I believe the target was first adopted by a British Government in the year in which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, was born—it took us a long time to reach it.
I am afraid the noble Baroness’s two questions are both hypothetical, and I cannot pre-empt what my right honourable friend the Chancellor is saying at the moment.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, in 2020, we have been informed by a virus that did not start in this country and will not end in this country of just how interdependent our world is in the 21st century. What possible justification could there be, in such a world and at such a time, to reduce by two-sevenths, or £2 in every £7, the budget that we spend—that we invest—around the world in tackling climate change, extreme poverty and preventing conflict and ill health?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right to point to the current circumstances of the pandemic as a forcible reminder of the importance of assisting people around the world: these are global problems. That is why the United Kingdom is one of the largest donors to the international Covid-19 response. We have already committed up to £1.3 billion to combat the pandemic and to reinforce the global effort to find and equitably distribute a vaccine.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Act in which I had a role—the Minister kindly referred to it—was as a result of consensus. Now, as the Chancellor has finished his Statement and it has been released, the Minister no longer needs to speculate; he can read from his brief what the reality is to the House. That reality could well be the biggest reduction in UK overseas assistance in a generation. Can the Minister look me—the sponsor of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act in this House—in the eye? There is no provision in this Act for a Secretary of State to proactively and deliberately miss the 0.7% target; it is the law and a duty. Will the Government uphold the law, and can the Minister confirm to me, personally and directly, that Secretaries of State will continue to uphold their legal duty under that Act?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord has an advantage over me in knowing what the Chancellor has said; he had not risen to his feet when I came into the Chamber. His Statement, like all Statements on fiscal events, will be released when he has sat down. There is a Topical Question in your Lordships’ House tomorrow, when all of us will be able to debate these matters, having acquainted ourselves with what my right honourable friend has said or is saying.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister accept that a cut in aid spending would risk undermining the leadership the UK has shown in supporting the H2H Network, which allows dozens of small independent groups to provide vital technical help, such as logistics, security and language services, in refugee camps, disaster zones and conflict areas? Will the Minister agree to persuade the Government to protect the budget for these organisations through the H2H network?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Government rely heavily on the capacity, expertise, resilience and flexibility of a number of organisations, such as the ones that the noble Baroness cites. We certainly pay tribute to them for their work and will, I am sure, be engaging with them as they see what my right honourable friend the Chancellor is saying today.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey (Con)
My Lords, if the newspapers are right, it is a sad day. I believe that, having supported and worked with the Liberal coalition to put the 0.7% commitment on the statute book, there is now a proposal from the Conservative Government that this might be changed. As noble Lords will know, I go back a very long way in this area. When I think of what could be done with that amount of money—particularly now, with the spreading of Covid, the continued spread of malaria and the spread of so many other diseases in Africa, which might well end up coming to Europe even if they are contained in Africa, the far east and South America at the present time—it seems to me madness; that is the only word I can use for it. I hope the noble Lord, who is quite newly facing the Front-Bench duties, will explain in words of one syllable just how bad this is, not only for the Government but for the country, which will have been seen to have let down the developing world.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I ask noble Lords to keep questions reasonably short so that we can get in all speakers on the list.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I hope my noble friend understands that I cannot comment on speculation in newspapers. Tomorrow, we will have an opportunity for an informed discussion after noble Lords have heard what my right honourable friend the Chancellor has said. I certainly pay tribute to my noble friend’s work as a Minister and the work she has done since in forcefully making the case for the increase in spending. I believe that when she left her role as Minister, we were spending 0.2% of GNI or thereabouts. It is to the great credit of successive Governments and all parties that that amount has since been increased.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester [V]
My Lords, the 2019 Conservative general election manifesto said:
“We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on development”.
That was before Covid, of course. On 16 June, the Prime Minister said in the other place that spending 0.7% remained the Government’s commitment. On 18 June, the Leader of the House reassured the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough of the Government’s continued commitment to the 0.7% target. In this House on 2 September, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, reassured the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, with these words:
“I assure her that we will continue to be guided by our responsibilities under the International Development Act”.—[Official Report, 2/9/20; col. 354.]
In a letter to the Prime Minister last week, I drew attention to Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s words:
“A promise to the poor is particularly sacred.”
Does the Minister agree with him?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate mentioned a large number of things said in Parliament in recent months. As I speak, my right honourable friend is saying something further; we will all have the opportunity to acquaint ourselves with it. The right reverend Prelate is also right to point to the fact that this pandemic has hit us since the last manifesto was written.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this year, we have seen £2.9 billion cut from the ODA budget, so whatever the Chancellor announces this afternoon will be on top of that—and could be as much as £4.8 billion. In September, only a short while ago, Dominic Raab told an FCDO staff meeting that
“the prime minister has been clear he wants aid to be at the beating heart of our foreign policy”
and that his “good pal” the Chancellor would not be cutting it. Can the Minister tell the House what the Foreign Secretary may be saying to his good pal this afternoon?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord will understand that I cannot speculate on what my right honourable friends may be saying to one another. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary led a thorough process to identify a package of necessary savings for this financial year, as the noble Lord said. That package prioritised the UK’s global response to the Covid-19 pandemic, including on poverty reduction for the bottom billion, climate change and reversing biodiversity loss, championing girls’ education and protecting our operational capacity. That work speaks for itself.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said yesterday that she was proud of the United Kingdom, with its commitment to 0.7%, as a “development superpower”. Last night, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said that reaching 0.7% was one of the
“great moral achievements in this country of the past 20 years.”
I am proud to have been the Minister who took my noble friend Lord Purvis’s Bill through the House of Lords with cross-party support. I can tell the Minister that it has been announced that aid has been cut from 0.7% to 0.5%. Is he proud of that?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I share the noble Baroness’s pride. I was an adviser in the coalition Government and worked with my noble friend Lady Sugg; in that capacity, I shared the words that she said in your Lordships’ House yesterday. Unlike the noble Baroness, I have not had the opportunity to hear what my right honourable friend the Chancellor has said. His speech, like all fiscal events, will be released later; I will listen to what he says. Your Lordships’ House will have an opportunity to debate the Topical Question tomorrow.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con) [V]
My Lords, I appreciate that my noble friend can say little or nothing today, but I put on record my support for the current spending level. Can my noble friend confirm that, whatever the result of the review, the department will continue to prioritise gender equality, especially girls’ education and family planning, which is the most effective way of raising women, families, communities and countries out of poverty?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very happy to give that reassurance to my noble friend. Since 2015, the UK has supported more than 15.5 million children in gaining a decent education; over 8 million of them were girls, to whom that is so important. On sexual and reproductive health and family planning, between 2015 and 2020, DfID reached a yearly average of 25.3 million women and girls with modern methods of family planning.
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
Does the House accept that the influence that the United Kingdom can exert in the post-Brexit world will come largely through the integration of our hard power—our defence capabilities—with our soft power, which is the combination of our diplomatic skills and the focused use of our international development budget? Does the Minister therefore accept that the potential reduction in our international development budget that has apparently just been announced will significantly reduce our soft power and thereby reduce the impact of so-called global Britain? Will the Minister ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think again before flouting the 0.7% figure, which is part of the law?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord raises important issues about the interconnectedness of these things, which is part of the integrated review that the Government are considering. He will have seen the announcements on defence spending, and I will certainly read with interest what my right honourable friend has said in another place.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
What the Chancellor has said has now been made public, so will the Minister confirm for the House whether new legislation will be introduced to repeal the Act that we have been discussing, which commits us to 0.7%? If not, who will be prosecuted: the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for International Development?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, my brief does not contain a copy of my right honourable friend’s speech. As is normal with fiscal events, that will be made available to Members in another place and your Lordships after he has sat down, which he may or may not have done. That will be the right opportunity for noble Lords to acquaint themselves with it.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to answer my question today. A 2019 National Audit Office report highlighted that the FCO had failed to match DfID’s transparency when it came to reporting on its ODA spending, and that it had spent a disproportionate portion of its aid transfers on administrative costs. With the formation of the FCDO, how do Her Majesty’s Government plan to improve transparency on the allocation of development spending and work bilaterally with developing nations to build capacity and complement domestic development programmes?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I hope that I can answer my noble friend’s question. The Government are certainly committed to ensuring the robust scrutiny of our aid. In August, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced the continuation of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and plans to conduct a review, to be concluded by the end of this year. That will ensure that the ICAI’s remit, focus and methods are most effectively scrutinising the impact of UK aid and the good that it can do for the world’s poorest people.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has elapsed.
DHSC Answers to Written Questions
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, earlier this week, there were 149 outstanding Written Questions addressed to the Department of Health and Social Care on the Lords business paper. My first question, therefore, has to be: when will they be answered?
One has to wonder about the quality of the Answers. On 21 July, my noble friend Lord Bassam asked a perfectly reasonable Question about
“how many COVID-19 tests have been sent by post and subsequently returned to laboratories, for each day since the scheme began; and how many of the tests sent by post have been discounted because swabbed material was not collected correctly.”
The Answer arrived today—25 November. It says:
“The information is not collected in the format requested”.
You have to wonder why a non-answer took so long to arrive. Does the answer possibly lie partly in the existence of the Cabinet Office clearing house? Are Written Questions subject to a clearing house process—something that many regard as part of a wider obstructive approach to disclosing information? Can the Minister tell the House whether he and his department are involved in referring things to the clearing house at the Cabinet Office?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the very large number of questions which have been put to the Department of Health is completely unprecedented. We had 577 in the whole of 2019. So far in 2020 we have had 1,783, of which 799 have been answered on time and the rest are late. I apologise for that; it is a matter of huge regret. I ask for the forbearance of the House, as the pandemic has put enormous pressure on the department.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, quite correctly alluded to one aspect of the answering of questions: the questions themselves often address novel challenges. Traditionally, we get questions about things that the department has been doing for years and years, where it is easy to pluck out an answer from the database or from the encyclopaedia of answers. The noble Baroness gave a good example of a question where it is difficult to elicit an answer. I know the exact question she referred to, because I have sought really hard to provide an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. The question of how many swabs have not been returned by post is much more complicated than it might look. There are different types of swabs; different schemes—ONS, REACT, clinical trials—send in the swabs. Inconveniently, they do not pool all the answers. Also, some swabs may sit on a bench or in a cupboard at a house for a long time and it is not possible to know when they are, or are not, sent back.
I cite that as an example of the kind of challenge that we have faced in answering questions from noble Lords. I am not trying to detract from the inconvenience of questions not being answered on time, but I assure the House that we have put in considerably more resources. We have upgraded the quality of the people who are answering the questions and have an absolute commitment to trying to answer them on time.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I remind Ministers that the instruction to be brief applies to their answers, as well as to questions from other Members.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I do not underestimate the pressure under which the Department of Health has been put and pay tribute to my noble friend for the number of times that he comes here to answer Questions. However, the data behind this virus is hugely important. I put down a Question asking about the number of NHS workers—doctors and nurses—who have been killed by the virus. The answer that came back was: “We don’t know”. Surely, we must know this. I have also asked a question in this Chamber, not a written one, about what the strategy is without vaccinations. A vaccine has now come, but we must know what the strategy is. Are we going to go into another lockdown if the infection rate rises again? Perhaps the Minister can answer that now?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, matching the data on deaths with the HR records of the NHS is actually very difficult. It cannot be done easily, or even accurately. Our strategy is crystal clear: to protect the NHS, keep the schools open and encourage the economy while we wait for the vaccine to be deployed.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the answer from the health department on 24 November to my letter of 8 June about the disparity of health outcomes from Covid-19 for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, although it did not answer our specific questions and was sent only to my cosignatory, Kate Green MP, not me. Will the Minister please answer my question of 21 October, due to be answered on 4 November, asking whether the Government would recognise International Stammering Awareness Day, now long past, with better technological provision for speech and language therapists, which is sorely needed?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I would be glad to track down the noble Baroness’s letter and get her the answer that she so desires.
Lord Wills (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have every sympathy with the unique pressures being placed on the Minister and his department this year. It was inevitable that mistakes would be made, but the crucial thing is to learn from them, not least because, however encouraging recent news has been, there are still considerable challenges to be overcome before the country can return to normal. When Ministers refuse even to address questions asked of them, it hardly encourages belief that they are prepared to learn lessons from recent months. I have asked many questions about the failure to utilise efficiently the much-needed capacity provided by the partnership between the private sector and the NHS. The responses were a masterclass in a wilful refusal to answer questions. Does the Minister not recognise the damage done by such public denial of the facts?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I regret enormously that the noble Lord feels that we have, in any way, avoided the facts. We are absolutely committed to learning the lessons of Covid, which will be profound. I note that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was in front of the House of Commons Select Committee on health for two and a half hours yesterday, answering exactly those questions. It was an illuminating and important discussion and I very much hope that this House will have an opportunity to do the same.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My noble friend is, I am sure, aware of the frustrations that the House has just heard. Here is a question to which I do not expect an answer, perhaps, at the moment. How many officials are actually involved in having to provide these answers? Does my noble friend agree that accuracy of responses is more important than speed?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, before the pandemic the parliamentary affairs team was made up of nine people; it has grown to 15. The ministerial correspondence and public inquiries team has grown from 51 people to 111. I think the noble Lord would agree that, at a time when we are trying to deal with test and trace along with programmes on therapeutics, restart, seasonal flu, PPE and vaccines, having 111 people working on correspondence seems the outer limit of what would be proportionate.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all questions in this section have now been asked. We will come to the next in a moment.
Leaseholders and Cladding
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests, as set out in the register. We are clearly making some progress with this Statement, but we need absolute clarity that no leaseholder or tenant will face any cost as a result of this scandal. Does the Minister accept that tenants and leaseholders are the innocent victims here? Does he also accept that redress for this scandal has to be by the builders who built the unsafe buildings, the people who signed them off as safe, and those organisations which provided insurances, warranties, guarantees and protections? It is regrettable that some of these companies are now trying to wriggle out of obligations that they gave.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, the Government do accept that leaseholders are victims in this situation. We recognise that the £1.6 billion of public funding that has been put up so far to pay for the costs of cladding remediation go some way to protecting leaseholders from the costs they face. We also recognise that this public funding does not absolve the industry from taking responsibility.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests in the register. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, just said about the growing public concern over this issue. The Health and Safety Executive gave evidence to the House of Commons scrutiny committee on the building safety Bill, which includes some clauses on cladding and fire safety of buildings. It said in the committee’s report that leaseholders should not
“have to worry about the cost of fixing historic safety defects in their buildings that they did not cause.”
Does the Minister agree with the Government’s own Health and Safety Executive?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, with the greatest respect, the bill for remediation of historic cladding defects cannot simply be passed to the taxpayer. We expect developers, investors and building owners who have the means to cover remediation costs themselves to do so without passing on costs to leaseholders.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
How many freeholders have been asked to pay for this remedial work on the buildings they commissioned on their land, and how many of those who built these dangerous dwellings, who all gain profit from the sale of leasehold properties? What legislation do the Government plan to bring forward to move from leasehold to co-ownership for multioccupancy buildings?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, in addition to other ministerial responsibilities, I am now responsible for looking at leasehold reform. This is not the place to opine on that, but just over 50% of private sector developers and freeholders with aluminium composite material in high-rises funded it and did not pass on the costs to leaseholders—a significant proportion stepped up to the plate and did the right thing.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare a possible interest as someone who might be affected. One million leaseholders will still be ripped off by landlords, freeholders and agents who will carry out all possible so-called remediation works and gold-plate them to increase the value of their holdings and make leaseholders pay through the nose for them. Will my noble friend confirm that the Government will bring forward an amendment to the Fire Safety Bill stating that leaseholders will not pay a penny for remedial works but will deal with the genuine anomaly of wear and tear and service charges, for which they should pay? Will he also bring forward urgent legislation on leasehold reform and the full abolition of this iniquitous, prehistoric law which should have no place in a levelled-up society?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend—that will be about five minutes’ work. I agree that leaseholders must be protected from unaffordable costs, particularly if these are driven by unnecessary gold-plating. I agree that leasehold reform needs to be an absolute priority, and it is a priority for this Government.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to follow my noble friend Lord Blencathra. The HCLG report published yesterday argued, correctly, that leaseholders should not be expected to foot the bill for failures not of their own making. Some property owners have taken the necessary steps, supported by the Government—and therefore the taxpayer—through funding, but sadly so many others have not. Can my noble friend tell me what I can say to Charlie, Rebecca and their baby, who bought their new build leasehold flat five years ago? The block failed the ESW1 process and the review found flammable cladding, combustible insulation, timber balconies and more. They are trapped in a flat that could go up in flames and have repair bills that could break them financially.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend must point out to them that this Government have an iron resolve to make sure that developers step up to the plate. They have made significant profits on those developments and will want to make profits in the future. We need to make them pay; we need to reason with them and say that it is no good laying this at the door of the taxpayer. They will have to step up to the plate. I will ensure that this Government make every endeavour to make them do so.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, 36 years ago, when I had my noble friend’s job at the then Department of the Environment, I put on the statute book the Housing Defects Act 1984. In a nutshell, it compensated homeowners who found that their homes were unsaleable, through no fault of their own, and had no other form of compensation coming from the Government. Does my noble friend think that that legislation has relevance to today’s leaseholders? Would he welcome my advice on how to persuade the Treasury to pay for it?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, there is no problem in public life that has not been seen before. My noble friend makes a valuable point and I will indeed ask my officials to look into the ways in which the Housing Defects Act of 1984, when I was doing my A-levels, and the Housing Act of 1988, when I left university, were used to address the issues we face today.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. There is no reply.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged; a Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate.
Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Wednesday 25th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 View all United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 150-III(Rev) Revised third marshalled list for Report - (23 Nov 2020)
14:38 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 62A - Ayes: 155 / Noes: 249 - Amendment 62A disagreed.
16:39 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 64 - Ayes: 323 / Noes: 241 - Amendment 64 agreed.
17:17 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 68A - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 257 - Amendment 68A agreed.
18:24 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 69 - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 230 - Amendment 69 agreed.
19:31 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 75 - Ayes: 134 / Noes: 247 - Amendment 75 disagreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I should inform the House that, on Monday, Amendment 34 was agreed in error. It was pre-empted by Amendment 31.
Clause 39: Enforcement
Amendment 62
Lord Callanan
(a) each relevant national authority, and(b) such other”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that the domestic administrations must be among the bodies consulted by the CMA in relation to its policy on enforcing information-gathering notices.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, during the Bill’s progress through Parliament, we have engaged extensively to ensure that it, and the Office for the Internal Market in particular, work for all parts of this country. We have always been clear that the Competition and Markets Authority will ensure the devolved Administrations are consulted on all important matters relating to the OIM. Following significant discussions with our devolved counterparts and noble Lords, we are pleased to introduce these two amendments, which will underscore the importance of the devolved Administrations in the operation of the OIM. The Government have emphasised throughout the introduction of the Bill that the UK internal market needs to work for all parts of this country, and these amendments are a testimony to this aim.
Amendment 62 ensures the CMA must consult the devolved Administrations when preparing or revising its policy on enforcing information-gathering notices. Alongside this, Amendment 63 will require the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Administrations over the level of fines that can be placed on bodies that do not comply with a CMA request for information. Both amendments give the devolved Administrations a significant say in the key operations of the OIM. These amendments will put beyond doubt this Government’s commitment to ensuring that the interests of the devolved Administrations are reflected in the governance of the OIM and that the OIM will continue to meet the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom.
I turn now to Amendments 62A, 63A and 63B, which seek to alter the CMA’s ability to effectively gather information. I reassure the House that, as highlighted in previous debates on the Bill, these penalty powers in Part 4 will not be commenced unless there is a clear and credible need for them—for example, to ensure that the OIM can gather credible and accurate information for its reporting and monitoring purposes. I believe this goes some way to addressing many of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, regarding the design of the information-gathering and enforcement regime. This will ensure that such a regime will be well considered, based on clear evidence of need and proportionate to fulfil the OIM’s duties. I emphasise that the need for accurate, and up-to-date information is essential to ensure that the OIM’s reports and advice are credible, evidence-based and meaningfully capture the UK internal market landscape.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for some of the considerations on which he elaborated around some of the penalties, but I find it hard to accept this in principle. The information-gathering procedures in the Bill seem without any limit on them in the Bill—an unreasonable measure. To try to find a way to tackle that, I tabled three amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for signing Amendment 62A on the small business exemption. From among the amendments, we hoped the Minister might consider adopting that one or come forward with a version for Third Reading.
Understanding why the penalty provision is unreasonable requires analysis of the background. Section 5 of the Enterprise Act 2002 gives the CMA an information-gathering function for obtaining, compiling and keeping under review information about matters relating to the carrying out of its functions; it does not give a fining power in order to compel businesses to respond. Such compulsion can come later, at a stage when a market study is undertaken, but the circumstances then are that some suspicion exists that businesses themselves have contributed to failures in the market. In contrast, Clause 38 of this Bill gives the CMA, in connection with reports under Clauses 31 to 34, or under Section 5 of the Enterprise Act when it concerns those clauses, the power to collect information and impose penalties on individuals and businesses in order to make them respond.
This power exceeds what the CMA can do for ordinary information gathering, and the provisions are a copy and paste of the powers that accompany the stronger measure of a CMA market study. But there has not been any corresponding copying of the other conditions that surround a market study; nor is it a comparable situation to a market study, because there is no suggestion that the things being investigated might be happening because of what businesses themselves are doing.
The powers in this Bill are about investigating regulations, which is entirely beyond the control of business, and there is no wrongdoing by business. These investigations are about circumstances created by legislatures and which legislatures wish to investigate. It is more comparable to a departmental consultation than to a market study, so what is the justification for coercing and burdening businesses, even if the Minister says there will be rules making that perhaps a bit less onerous? In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, said of these powers:
“The argument that they were derived from legislation the purpose of which was very different is well taken and might point to further amendment.”—[Official Report, 4/11/20; col. 726.]
That is the view of the recent, former chair of the CMA.
One of my amendments would delete the penalties clause, which is really what I think should be done, although I see little hope of persuading the Minister. My second attempt, Amendment 63B, tried to recreate some of the circumstances of a market study, but as the Minister recently confirmed that only regulations can be investigated, not business cases, it does not fit and it does not work. So my third attempt—Amendment 62A—concentrating where it really matters, exempts small businesses from the penalties. It uses the small business definition from the Companies Act, expanded to cover non-company structures. The Companies Act recognises that small businesses should have a lesser public interest burden by exemption from some filings and it recognises that in primary legislation—it does not rely upon regulations or codes of conduct. Why not apply similar logic here?
Small businesses do not all have the wherewithal to respond to onerous consultations, although many will help when they can, but the information requirements in this Bill can require work to be done or attendance at a given place, both causing financial loss. There is no compensation save travel expenses. Yes, there is a “without good reason” defence, but the smallest businesses cannot afford a legal challenge even if they knew of the defence.
Perhaps the CMA will be reasonable itself in setting its code of practice. The Minister hopes so, but there is no certainty, and a notice detailing applicable penalties is a frightening thing. Of course, it belongs to another culture, in which the CMA’s core functions require confrontation with business and suspicion that businesses and companies are doing wrong.
In Committee I asked the Minister what would constitute a reasonable excuse, giving a wide range of examples relative to small businesses. I got no reply, nor have I had a written reply despite having asked for one—although I know the Minister is very busy, not least writing to colleagues.
This is a huge encroachment on civil liberties and the freedom to conduct business. I hope that, at this 11th hour, the Minister will listen and come back with something at Third Reading to put in the Bill that reinforces the statements he has made. But, if there is not that prospect, this is a matter of deep principle—and I speak as somebody who ran a small business for 30 years—and I must give notice of my intention to call a vote on Amendment 62A if negotiations cannot proceed at Third Reading.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend has listened to many of the concerns raised in Committee. I also welcome his saying that the Government will consult carefully on penalties, and the penalties will be limited. I thank him for saying that the needs of small businesses will be taken into account as well.
However, I cannot help but continue to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, which I have added my name to, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, because the points she made seem most persuasive. She has clearly explained that the proposed penalty regime is not comparable with that of the current CMA, despite my noble friend indicating that it is.
The penalties under the CMA would apply in cases where firms are suspected of wrongdoing or unfair competition or practices. But it has already been acknowledged by my noble friends Lord True and Lord Tyrie that the Bill is concerned here merely with data gathering itself, such as would occur in consultations or calls for evidence, rather than information requests that follow from suspected failures. Therefore, I urge my noble friend the Minister to reconsider the position that many small businesses could find themselves in if information is demanded of them under these powers. It would take scarce corporate resources away from operating the business and is likely to pose significant difficulties for firms that do not have lots of employees available to comply with such an information request.
I point out to my noble friend the Minister from these Benches—as a member of a party that has always been the friend of small business and has promoted the value and virtue of people starting up businesses and running small firms themselves—that there is a significant risk here of imposing unreasonable burdens. I echo the call from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for a meeting with him before Third Reading to see if we can find a form of words that the Government could accept, to avoid the need for a vote on Report.
I hope my noble friend understands that this is about a fear that the Bill imposes unreasonable and abnormal demands. For example, on pensions, the Pensions Regulator has not previously had the power to demand information from schemes unless it suspected wrongdoing. I hope we can find a way in this Bill to exempt small businesses from this burden and the potential threat of penalties.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 62A, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. We owe her our thanks for bringing this important wrinkle in the Bill to our attention. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, have already eloquently set out the reasons why this amendment is needed, so I will not detain the House for too long.
The Bill creates draconian powers of investigation for the CMA, with associated penalties which, as we have heard, are much more suited to its duties of investigating market abuse. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, pointed out, the wording has actually been lifted from those duties. However, the purposes of the investigation set out in this Bill are very different from market abuse investigations. In this Bill they are investigations into the impacts of regulations or provisions made by the various national authorities. Businesses are not in this case being suspected of, or investigated for, market abuse, yet the Bill will mean that they will have to respond to notices subject to penalty as if they were.
Even if we reluctantly accept that these powers and penalties are appropriate—and I do not—we must surely ensure that the powers, and in particular the penalties, do not become an undue or unfair burden on business. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord the Minister had to say in this opening speech, and I am afraid that I do not think that the protections and the consultations that he mentioned go far enough in this case.
While larger businesses may be able to cope with such an investigation, small companies do not have compliance departments or in-house legal teams. They do not have the excess capacity to be able to deal with such investigations. Even in normal times, these investigations would be burdensome for small companies, and it is even more the case when they are trying to recover from the Covid crisis and at the same face up to the challenges that leaving the EU single market will create. This is no time to load additional burdens on to small businesses. Therefore, I urge the Minister to accept this simple—and, I had hoped, uncontroversial—amendment, or at least to come forward with some protections for smaller companies, as has been suggested.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the opening statement from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I think he has proposed an improvement in the Bill, by adding further requirements for consultation with the devolved Administrations. That is for the good. I also have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I can see the argument that, if there are impediments to the internal market in a particular sector, the new body will require an information-gathering power, and if you have that power you have to have an enforcement power. It is welcome that the Minister says that these powers will be exercised in a voluntary and proportionate way. Yes, maybe—but I do think that there is a special concern about small businesses, to which I hope the Minister can find a way of responding positively in his reply.
I have to say—and I cannot resist the temptation to poke fun at the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on this—that if such clauses had been proposed by the European Commission, we would have heard his screams of protest from the committee rooms of Brussels to the banks of the Tyne, which he represented, and he would have raised the roof on the wonderful auditorium of the plenary in Strasbourg. I can hear him now in excellent Brexiteer mode. Of course, now that Brexit has happened, these concerns are of no consequence. The truth is—and I think this is going to become clear—that for business Brexit means more and more bureaucracy, and this is what we are seeing in terms of the new customs arrangements and in terms of this Bill. There—I cannot resist making that point.
Having said that, there are many serious issues with this Bill. I regard it as a treaty-breaking, devolution-wrecking, United Kingdom-unravelling Bill. These are serious points for debate and many of the amendments we are considering this afternoon, I am afraid, contribute to those consequences. So I hope that a compromise can be reached on this matter before Third Reading and, on that basis, I will abstain in the Division.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The next speaker on the list, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has withdrawn. I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord. Like him, I was surprised at the level of the penalties for these infringements. I join noble Lords who congratulated and thanked my noble friend the Minister for listening to concerns expressed at an earlier stage of proceedings and bringing forward Amendment 62. I will just ask: what form will the consultation by the CMA with the devolved Administrations take? How long will be allocated to it generally, along with the other bodies that are to be consulted?
Has the CMA taken a policy decision not to have on its board currently, as I read it, any representatives of the devolved Administrations? I notice that Jo Armstrong, for whom I have the highest regard, is represented. She is currently a commissioner with the Water Industry Commission for Scotland with whom I have had the pleasure to work for four or five years. But I do not see that any specific representatives of the devolved Administrations are there. Given the thrust and context of this Bill, it will be interesting to know if there is any policy principle as to why there are not. I know that my noble friend will say that that is a matter for the CMA, but it works under the guidance of the Secretary of State and the department, so I ask him to comment in that regard.
I echo the concerns raised by other noble Lords and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for her Amendments 62A, 63A and 63B. I ask my noble friend to consider to what extent the ask under Article 39 goes much wider than is currently envisaged in, I think, the Enterprise Act that forms the basis for these provisions. Against the background that these are quite substantive penalties, will the Minister be mindful of the debate that we have had, noting, in particular, the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Liddle? Will my noble friend have regard and perhaps pause at this stage and come forward with a further government amendment at Third Reading?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I support the government amendments in this group, but I put my name down to speak in order to address the other amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. Like her, I am concerned about the heavy-handed penalties that could apply in respect of the CMA’s information powers under the Bill.
The CMA has extensive information powers under the Enterprise Act 2002, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, explained, which are needed so that it can carry out its competition functions effectively, in particular in the face of companies or sectors that are resistant to one of the CMA studies. However, there has to be a serious question about the information powers put into the Bill in respect of the office for the internal market. It should be remembered there was no clear consultation on this during the summer, so the proposals have not had a lot of serious attention.
The OIM will of course be focused on the effectiveness of the internal market rather than the behaviour of companies or sectors. I understand that the OIM needs to build up a picture of intra-UK trade flows in order to understand the scope of what it is looking at, and it should have the ability to request that information. However, to back up that kind of information gathering with extensive penalties is not right. It stands in stark contrast with the Trade Bill, which sets up the possibility of requesting information from businesses in respect of international trade—but it is very clearly a request, with no compulsion. My noble friend Lord Grimstone of Boscobel confirmed that in Committee on the Trade Bill.
The office for the internal market may well want to gather information from the devolved Administrations or regulatory bodies within the devolved territories. For example, it could be looking at whether particular provisions have a detrimental effect. That sort of information gathering is largely within the public sector, and the enforcement provisions in Clauses 39 and 40 do not make sense in that context.
Can the Minister say who the “persons” in Clause 39, whom the Government expect to be served with a penalty notice, are? Could one of them be, for example, the First Minister in Scotland, or one of her Ministers? If not, why not? I suspect that the serious information that may need to be extracted at some stage will come from the devolved Administrations. Why should businesses, which will be the victims of any abuses of the internal market, be treated in the way envisaged in the Bill?
So I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in particular in her Amendment 62A to try to shield small companies from these powers. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in his introductory remarks, which were very helpful, but I remain concerned that the CMA will use inappropriately the powers given to it by the Bill. There are no safeguards against that, so I hope that my noble friend will take this away for further discussions between Report and Third Reading.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I should declare an interest in that I have a partnership with my wife to look after 40 acres of woodland in Bedfordshire. I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench. I have worked on a great number of Bills in this and the other place, and it is good that when we discuss things in depth, right across the Chamber, problems are raised and the Minister listens. I welcome enormously Amendments 62 and 63.
However, I share the concerns of some other noble Lords about the implications of Amendment 62A. It raises questions that ought to be considered—although I am not in a position to repeat what my noble friend Lady Noakes said. I hope that the Minister has listened to the concerns expressed from both sides of the Chamber and will find a means of ensuring that what might be very unusual cannot happen. I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench is listening. Some consideration should be given to including Amendment 62A, or something comparable, in the Bill.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have to declare an interest, in the sense that, due to my IT incompetence, my name appeared in error on this list of speakers. Nevertheless, I have listened to the debate. It is not an area that I know anything at all about, but I am much taken with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. My views were summed up by my noble friend Lord Liddle. I agree with him. The Minister has obviously tried to meet the requests of the House with his own amendments and, to that extent, we should be grateful. However, as I say, I really was not part of this debate but the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has my support.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the next speaker on the list, the noble Lord, Lord Flight, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, many noble Lords have railed against the virtual process, but the serendipitous arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is perhaps justification for having a virtual Parliament after all.
I thank the Minister and other speakers in this short debate. I should like to put this issue into context. Back in the day, when I worked in the real world, in many cases the sort of inquiry that we are talking about would have come across my desk. I worked for large international corporate companies and, even for us, it was difficult to find the resources to respond to some of these requests. So this is a real problem and Amendment 62A seeks to address a real issue that will genuinely cross the desks of small businesses in this country.
The Minister tried to corral these requests, saying that they would occur only when the office for the internal market needed credible and accurate information. Well, I trust that it always needs credible and accurate information, so that is no restriction on the office. He also talked about the word “proportionate”. I should correct the noble Lord, Lord Liddle: the Minister did not use the word “voluntary”. He said “proportionate”. This is not a voluntary process but a compulsory one, as it stands in the Bill. That is the problem. And proportionate to whom? Is it proportionate to the desire of the office for the internal market to get credible and accurate information, or proportionate to the fact that five, six or seven people occupy an important part of the market but do not necessarily have the resources to respond to these requests?
The Minister also said that only in a small number of cases did he expect that a formal information notice would be required. Well, that is where some of the clarification can come. What are the circumstances around which a formal information notice would be required? How do we ring-fence it and make sure that we understand what “proportionate” means in the context of this discussion? The Minister also said that leaving out, or giving this exemption to, small businesses would set a terrible precedent. However, my sense is that precedents have already been set in other Acts. I cannot remember exactly, but I think that the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act has carve-outs for small businesses, and there are many other Acts in which small businesses already have carve-outs. So the precedent already exists; it is just a question of which precedent one chooses to select.
The nub of the problem is that the Minister said that the powers were carved out of the existing powers of the CMA. However, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, the powers are used for an entirely different purpose—to investigate and identify potential irregularities and law-breaking. That is not the nature of what we are saying.
When I entered this debate, I expected, for once, to be on the same side of the argument as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and that proved the case. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, gave a very powerful and detailed explanation about why the Minister should be serious about this issue. It is absolutely true that the Trade Bill has taken a different route; it acknowledges that this information is essential but has gone down the route of gathering it voluntarily. If the Minister is in the business of precedence, perhaps that would be a better precedent for him to take.
It seems bizarre that a Conservative Government would push this level of red tape on the small, enterprising and innovative businesses of this country. It seems strange that we should be the flag carriers of this case, rather than the Minister, and it was important to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pick this up.
My noble friend Lady Bowles talked about the possibility of something being agreed for Third Reading. I am no expert in body language, but I saw a faint shaking of the head cross the Minister’s personage when my noble friend mentioned the idea of some sort of negotiation or compromise being reached in time for Third Reading. In light of what the Minister has heard, not just from this side of the House but from his staunchest supporters throughout the Bill, making serious and important comments about this issue, I ask that, whatever decision he comes to, he makes it very clear verbally. We are in a hybrid House, and not all of us can benefit from the subtle nuances of the Minister’s demeanour in working out whether he will or will not be negotiating at Third Reading. Can the Minister be clear about his intentions between now and Third Reading, then we can be clear about whether to vote in support of this amendment?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, partly for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has given, this has been an interesting debate, with some flying in without any original intent but also from across the House. It highlights many of the issues facing what was meant to be an “oh so easy” departure from nearly half a century of EU membership. Practices and rules within the EU developed over years, with input and experience from business and consumers and the experience of how things worked, and from Governments, regulators, courts and lawyers. As my noble friend Lord Liddle said, there were umpteen harrumphs, grumphs and complaints from the Minister and others who are not supporters of the EU, but the rules were created in that way. They were created by discussion, experience and by knowing what was needed when. They were not written hurriedly over the summer, as we know the Bill was.
The creation of an internal market, covering four parts of the UK with their own Governments and competences, needs as much careful thought, planning and, especially, consultation and joint decision-making as has worked so well across the EU as its single market developed. It is sad that some of these amendments need to be written into legislation—we hoped they would have been taken for granted. But we need to set down that the devolved authorities should, of course, be consulted at any stage of decision-making, and we therefore welcome Amendments 62 and 63 in the Minister’s name, and welcome this formalising of the devolved Administrations’ rights and roles.
The other issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Altmann and Lady Noakes, are clearly accurate in their specific content. Our only problem with them, especially given the vital three issues in the Bill—Part 5, the Henry VIII powers and devolution—is that they are probably not the right subjects on which to ask the Commons to think again, but we would like to ask the Government to think again. There are some really big questions that we need the Commons to consider. Our fear is that sending Amendments 62A and 63B back to the Commons simply would not serve a purpose. It normally takes a nanosecond for them to be overturned there when, actually, we want to get the attention of the Minister and Government.
I have a slight problem with the idea of releasing small businesses from all penalties. We do not do that in other areas, in particular with health and safety. Offering a complete safe haven in all circumstances could be detrimental to consumers and employees—but that is a small point. More serious is the wider issue touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, of whether these information-gathering powers are right. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, the OIM is being shoehorned into the CMA, and the fit simply does not work. As a regulator, the office for the internal market would be better tailored to be independent, so it could develop rules, a code of practice or any penalties needed suited to the task in front of it, rather than brought over from elsewhere. We are going to discuss that later: the big issue of whether the OIM should indeed be part of the CMA.
My plea to the movers is not to put this to a vote today. My guess is that the Minister would prefer that, because he would be able to wait for the other place to overturn it, which is not what we want at all. I worry that it would detract from the big issues, but it would also not deal with the broader issue of how the OIM will work. For that reason, we do not support it. I do not think it is the right way of dealing with an important issue.
I make one further point on how devolution is to be strengthened, which is part of the noble Lord’s amendments. It is about recognising the devolved authorities, as we implement the plan in the Bill to make an internal market work. The Minister has protested throughout that the Government are committed to the common frameworks process and that they have not retreated from the principles under which they were set up in 2017. Ministers have said that they respect the hard work that has gone into making these frameworks over the last three years, and the way in which they are pioneering new ways of working between the four countries and the harmony, as well as harmonisation, that has emerged. They have reiterated praise of the common frameworks, at the same time as saying that they are inadequate, partial and need to be overtaken by the Bill, rejecting all evidence to the contrary and despite public concern that the Bill will lower standards and provide less certainty than the frameworks will.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their interventions on this subject; I understand the sincerity with which Peers have addressed it. However, as I said in my opening remarks, the amendments on which we have been able to get agreement put beyond doubt that the OIM will closely consult and work with the devolved Administrations on an equal basis, in the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom. These important changes ensure that the OIM’s policy on information-gathering and enforcement, including the level of penalties, will be carefully considered in consultation with the devolved Administrations. This will ensure greater transparency in decision-making and will help ensure that the OIM will be able to gather the accurate information it needs to independently assess and monitor the UK internal market. Of course, the Government have made it clear that reports carried out by the OIM each year will be made available both to this Parliament and to the devolved legislatures.
I reiterate a point I made in previous debates: to be clear, the penalty powers in Part 4 will not come into effect unless there is clear evidence that there is a need to do so in order for the CMA to fulfil its internal market functions. I believe that this provides the necessary assurances that any penalties regime will be proportionate and transparent.
In addressing some of the points made in the debate, I turn first to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on precedent. I can certainly reassure noble Lords that the Bill sets out clearly the maximum limits to the level of financial penalties in Clause 40(6). They do not exceed those which the CMA can currently impose. Penalties and the enforcement regime are based on precedent, as set out in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. As I mentioned in my opening speech, the justification for these powers is that, without such a deterrent in place, there is an incentive not to comply with information-gathering requests, and that runs the risk of not having completely accurate information supplied to the OIM.
My noble friend Lady Altmann gave the example of the Pensions Regulator. I can say that excluding an entire class of business from information-gathering requirements such as these does not have as firm a standing in precedent as the she suggests. The CMA acting as a reasonable public body will, of course, in all cases, take into account all relevant factors, whether on the face of the Bill or not, in considering how to act and whether to pursue penalties, if they have been commenced at all.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about reasonable excuses. I am not sure whether it was she who asked me a similar question on Report on Monday, but as I said then, the CMA would set out in its statement of policy the clear steps and procedures regarding the enforcement of its information-gathering regime. The penalties will not be commenced until there is evidence that they are called for, and even then they will not be used except as a last resort, whatever the size of the business. The CMA will consult all relevant persons regarding its statement of policy. I am happy to confirm to my noble friend Lady Noakes that, as I said in Committee, the CMA will not be able to issue a financial penalty against—I am pleased to say—either this Government or any UK Government, or indeed the devolved Administrations.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned consultations. The Bill requires that Ministers should consult as a matter of fact before they exercise their delegated powers. As is normal for such legislation, it does not spell out in great detail how this must be achieved, but we will engage with the devolved Administrations as part of the process of normal policy development, by, for example, sharing draft SIs and publications, and co-operating on public-facing events wherever that is possible, and, in any case, more formally before a decision is made.
For all of the reasons that I have set out, I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendments that I have tabled and that the noble Baroness will not press hers. However, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and to be absolutely clear and to put the matter beyond doubt, I am afraid that I have gone as far as I can go on these matters and I will not be reflecting further before Third Reading. Therefore, if the noble Baroness wants to test the opinion of the House, she should do so now.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no request to ask the Minister a short question. I shall therefore put the Question.
“( ) Penalties under section 39(1) or (2) may not be imposed on small companies, as defined in section 382 of the Companies Act 2006 (companies qualifying as small: general), or on partnerships or other businesses with similar criteria.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
In moving this amendment, I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to negotiate further about small businesses. I am also sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and Labour do not seem to think that small businesses—which are the backbone of jobs and the economy in this country—are a sufficiently serious matter. I consider that allowing businesses to have the freedom to conduct their business without obstruction when they have done no wrong is quite a serious constitutional matter. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House and to record my vote and those of my colleagues.
Lord Callanan
“(aa) each other relevant national authority,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that the other domestic administrations must be among the bodies consulted by the Secretary of State about regulations setting the level of penalties for contraventions of information-gathering notices issued by the CMA.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 64. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 42: Power to provide financial assistance for economic development etc
Amendment 64
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove the provision for a Minister of the Crown to provide financial assistance for economic development etc. anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, I rise to move this amendment to remove Clause 42 of the Bill. This amendment and Amendment 69, to which we shall come later and which stands in my name, deals with two clauses that are in some ways closely related. This clause authorises the UK Government to spend funds on the huge area of government expenditure—indeed, almost any aspect of government expenditure. Clause 44 deals with the quite separate question of state aid, and it is very important to keep them distinct. I make it clear in moving this amendment that I intend to press this to a Division.
First, I shall say a little bit about the clause. What is it for? The Conservative manifesto spoke of a shared prosperity fund which was intended to be a successor to the European Union regional structural funds. I looked on it as something that would strengthen the union by sharing the prosperity of our four nations. However, because it wore the word “shared”, it carried with it the connotation that the Governments of the four parts of the United Kingdom would share in the way in which it was distributed in accordance with the constitutional arrangements in place.
That such a fund would be greatly welcomed does not need to be stated. There are parts of the UK—and being here in Wales it is evident—that are far poorer than other parts of the United Kingdom, and investment is needed. Of course, we need to look carefully and in a structured way at how they are to be dealt with. I think we have—and I shall come to this later—some guidance published this afternoon in the Red Book, at box 3.1 on page 37. It is convenient for me to deal with that when I come to deal with the role of the devolved Governments.
There is one thing I ought to say—and I hate that this is something that will not come to pass. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, drew our attention to another term. She pointed out that in the European Union there were rules about funds allocated for the remediation of poverty and for equalling people up which had been made available to parts of the United Kingdom, including Wales. She pointed out that there would be detailed rules, and that Europe operated detailed rules. However, this shared prosperity fund still has no detailed rules, despite what is said in box 3.1, to which I have referred. She pointed out that the Americans have a term, pork barrelling, for this kind of fund. I would like to continue to call it a shared prosperity fund, because I believe in the union and in sharing the way our country is governed, and I hope that we will never have this aspect of American politics brought into our way of doing things but, plainly, there are dangers along those lines.
This clause is best analysed by asking eight questions. The first is why it is included in the Bill? As it stands, it is wholly separate from the other provisions we have been debating, which are to do with the internal market. The Bill is not concerned with the allocation of government powers to spend money between the devolved Governments and the Government of the United Kingdom with England. Secondly, what is its aim? I have addressed that: as was stated in the Government’s manifesto and now in box 3.1, it is intended to level up the divisions of society within the union and to help.
One immediately has to ask why this clause is needed. The Government have done city deals and have provided money, perfectly property, under our existing constitutional arrangements. Why do they need this power? If they were to provide the funds through the existing constitutional arrangements, this power would not be needed. The devolved Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be involved and the spending programmes would go along the way they have always gone along, this fund being an additional fund provided from moneys no longer remitted to the European Union. Indeed, if it were to follow the lines of the city deals or its predecessors in the European Union, the Government would negotiate the other Governments, in the case of the devolved nations, or, in the case of England, the various regions and cities, what they felt the money should be spent on, consider it and make a decision. That is all perfectly feasible. So, yes, it is a very good idea to have a shared prosperity fund, and it needs no legislation.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I should inform the House that if Amendment 64 is agreed to, Amendments 66 and 67 cannot be called.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. I admire how thoroughly he outlined his amendment, to which I have added my name. I inform the House that I believe Amendment 68 in my name is consequential to Amendment 64, so if Amendment 64 is agreed to by the House then I will move Amendment 68.
As the noble and learned Lord concluded his remarks, he hit on a fundamentally important point, about which we raised concerns in Committee and earlier, which have been reinforced by the Chancellor’s Statement today. Both before and during Committee, the concern was that the Government sought these financial powers to override one of the core elements of devolution: that expenditure on devolved areas in our devolved nations should be taken by the bodies accountable to them for those policy areas. As a member of five years’ standing of the Finance Committee in the Scottish Parliament, I know that that spending would come with agreed policy platforms, financial strategies and a degree of accountability.
The Government, I think, believe that the people owe loyalty to those who spend the money, and therefore the main priority is to identify the source of the money—not how it is delivered and not the accountability for it. However, as the noble and learned Lord raised, can the Minister clarify whether that is the case as she responds to the debate on these amendments?
If the Government have indeed announced their intention to override the devolution settlement and to use this Bill to deliver spending on devolved areas without the agreement of the devolved Administrations, that will indeed confirm the fears that we outlined, both at Second Reading and in Committee. I hope that the Minister will be able to say clearly that that is not the case, but I fear from the announcement that has been made today that it is.
The concern started because we had seen very little consultation with the devolved Administrations—or indeed English local authorities—on the spending powers that were to be in this Bill, and we had not been given any indication that these powers had been the result of consultation. There had been consultation on the replacement of EU structural funds, and that consideration was fairly extensive. But there was a mismatch between the consultation on how to repatriate the structural funds and the powers under this Bill, which are catch-all. Not only that, there surely could not have been consultation based on the manifesto commitment of the Government, which was to replace those funds with a skills fund—that was in the Conservative Party manifesto. So the powers that seem to be indicated go far beyond what the manifesto itself said, and indeed the results of the consultation on what the structural funds should be.
There is no reference in the Bill to what the delivery mechanism would be. The noble and learned Lord indicated quite clearly that, under the previous scheme—where, I remind the House, 76% of all European investment had been allocated to the member states—it was to be managed through the devolution settlement, and that management was through our existing frameworks. The current multiannual financial framework, from 2014 to 2020, which is coming to an end, was a UK partnership agreement. It gave granular detail—373 pages of it—of the fund: where it was going, the administration of it, how it was administered and how complementarity would be secured between the legitimate devolved policy areas. The Government have indicated that that approach is no longer fit for purpose because that was the European structural funds. Before we see announcements at a political level about the political intention, surely it is right that the Government publish the respective replacement process.
My party on these Benches and I, as a former Member of the Scottish Parliament, have never been opposed, since devolution, to the UK Government supporting schemes within Scotland. But that was under a recognition that it was linked to the correct competences of the UK Government. For example, in 2018, the UK Government supported the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in supporting artists to promote the United Kingdom around the world in one of the world’s premier cultural events. Local to home in my area, the wonderful Common Ridings used to be very familiar with receiving support from the local authority, the Scottish Government and the UK Government.
The point is not that the UK Government should be restricted from supporting reserved areas in the devolved countries, but that the policies for delivery of the replacement of the structural funds should be done under an agreed process. That agreed process seems to be set on its head now, with the Government believing that they will deliver the programmes, regardless of consultation, regardless of agreement and, more worryingly, regardless of an agreed framework for how these funds can be delivered.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, who has repeatedly shone a light into dark corners of this Bill, and to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
I strongly support Amendment 64 and Amendment 65, to which I have put my name. It has become increasingly apparent that Clause 42 would enable the Government to work around, rather than work with, the devolved Governments, in particular replacing the regional development funding, which has been so significant here in my own country, Wales, in addressing endemic problems such as economic inactivity and lack of skills. After all, the Government can already provide funds to support devolved matters, providing they do so in partnership with the elected Governments.
In that surprising article last week in the Daily Telegraph, already referred to, the Secretary of State claimed:
“For the first time, this money will be able to be spent by people who have been directly voted for by the people of Wales. People who know the local communities best, and who can develop coherent proposals that are aligned with broader UK-wide priorities.”
It is astonishing that this Government seem to have ignored the group of stakeholders endorsed by the Welsh Local Government Association and the majority of its members, convened—but not commanded—by those directly elected to the Welsh Senedd to develop a framework for regional investment to determine the spending priorities for this funding.
But of course we now have the Chancellor’s statement and can see in box 3.1, as referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas, the heads of terms of the UK shared prosperity fund. It states, with reference to additional funding in 2021, that the Government will provide such funding to communities using the new financial assistance powers in this Bill. This seems to bypass the elected Welsh Government by inviting local authorities to directly bid to central government. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether I have understood correctly or not.
I am afraid this Government’s record is to spend on things that have always been the Government’s responsibility. Think of the rail infrastructure: the electrification of the Great Western main route was cut short at Cardiff, despite all the arguments in favour of extending west. Then there are major energy projects, such as the tidal lagoon or broadband, where the Welsh Government had to invest huge funds, including from the EU—which the Minister seems to loathe—to make good the underinvestment by Whitehall. Some suggest that this looks deliberately timed to be before the elections to the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament, and to drive a wedge through the devolved nations’ ability to consider their whole-population needs.
The history of the £3.6 billion towns fund, which relied on Ministers selecting which towns would receive funding, does not inspire confidence. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee were not convinced by the rationale behind these choices. The committee said:
“The justification offered by ministers for selecting individual towns are vague and based on sweeping assumptions. In some cases, towns were chosen by ministers despite being identified by officials as the very lowest priority (for example, one town selected ranked 535th out of 541 towns).”
The Minister may try to provide reassurance that this Government would not use the powers in Clause 42 to undermine the political priorities of the elected Government in Wales. But once on the statute book, this clause would open the way for future Governments of any colour to ride roughshod over an elected devolved Government. Clause 42 undermines the devolution settlement, which has functioned well for the last two decades. The clause should be removed.
Amendment 65 is an intelligent and thoughtful proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, to depoliticise the allocation of funding to replace the EU structural funds to reflect economic and social need, not political expediency. It gives an appropriate role to the devolved Governments, while recognising that this is UK funding designed to level up regions with weaker economies in line with the Government’s own declared aspirations. If the Minister is unable to accept Amendment 64 and remove the offending clause in its entirety, I call on the Minister to settle for this compromise amendment, which will allay suspicions that the Government want to manipulate regional funding for their own ends rather than address objective, clear economic priorities.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 64, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, to leave out Clause 42. I agree with him and with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in her pertinent comments in support of that amendment. If, however, we do not succeed in removing this provision from the Bill or succeed with Amendment 65, the Bill most certainly needs to be amended to meet the widespread criticism, expressed in the devolved legislatures and, only last Friday, in the Western Mail—if I may quote it rather than the Telegraph—which stated in its editorial’s headline:
“This plan is a direct threat to devolution.”
And it is just that.
I wish to speak to Amendment 67 in my name, which addresses the issue at the heart of the Welsh Government’s misgivings and those of my party, Plaid Cymru. It revolves around the linked questions of what replaces the European regional funding, of which Wales has been a major beneficiary over the past few decades, and who controls the expenditure priorities for any replacement funding coming from the UK Treasury.
The need for this amendment can be properly appreciated only if it is considered in the context of the immense benefit Wales has secured from the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund over the past two decades. Wales is not the only part of the UK that has benefited; Scotland, Northern Ireland, Cornwall, Merseyside and South Yorkshire have also received significant investment. However, it has been Wales—in particular, the area known as West Wales and the Valleys—that has received the most significant level of investment. There is a good reason for this or, I should say, an understandable reason, for it is bad news, not good news: West Wales and the Valleys, the area which includes most of the old coal mining, slate quarrying and marginal land farming in Wales, is, sadly, one of the poorest regions in the entire European Union. The GDP per head of population in this area has been below 75% of the EU average. We were entitled to European funding due to persistent, long-term economic poverty, which the UK Government had, for most of the 20th century, failed to address—and certainly failed to eradicate.
The system utilised by the European Union established the criteria, framework and ground rules of the funding programme, each round of which lasted seven years. The Welsh Government put forward their proposed investment programme, which had to be agreed with the EU authorities in Brussels. The Welsh Government provided matched funding, which had to be additional to the normal spending budgets. That principle of additionality caused some controversy in the early days, with the UK Treasury reluctant to make additional funds available until it was instructed to do so by the EU regional commissioner—one Michel Barnier, God bless him.
The detailed rollout of the programme was, and still is, overseen by WEFO—the Welsh European Funding Office. The funding has been used for a range of projects, two of which I was involved in: the creation of the Galeri performing arts centre in Caernarfon and the management centre of the business school of Bangor University, both assisted by some £6 million of European funding. They could not have gone ahead without it. Both projects have been tremendously successful, as I know both the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, can testify.
The third round of this European programme is still running. For the period 2014-2020, the operational programme is worth some £3 billion to Wales. At the time of the Brexit referendum, leave campaigners stressed repeatedly that the funding coming from Brussels would be replaced in full—I repeat, replaced in full—by money from the Treasury in London. I well remember, as I am sure many noble Lords do, being told that the funding emblazoned on that Brexit battle bus—the claimed Brexit bonus of £350 million per week—would, in just a fortnight, fund the annual replacement cost of the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund money coming to Wales. Of course, we were told that the Welsh Government would be fully in control of its use. Those were the promises made, on which basis Wales—regrettably, to my mind—voted to leave the European Union. The time has come to redeem those promises, and Amendment 67 facilitates that commitment.
Amendment 67 seeks to establish the principles that will safeguard the funding coming to Wales and, likewise, to Scotland and Northern Ireland from funds denoted in Part 5 of the Bill. Specifically, the amendment provides that funding should reflect need, not some ad hoc arbitrary criteria, nor a Barnett-type formula, which has been repeatedly condemned by committees of this House yet was used again today in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Autumn Statement. Funding on a needs-based distribution, related to the GDP per head of population, would be the basis. In that way, it respects the pattern of distribution of European regional funding—a pledge made during the referendum. Amendment 67 requires the Minister to bring forward a needs-based formula to be approved by order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and provides for the Minister to secure the agreement of the devolved Governments to the content of that order. The amendment also proposes that each annual figure be presented as part of a three-year rolling programme, to ensure that coherent, long-term investment programmes can be secured and the money is not frittered away on short-term fixes.
We have heard a lot during the passage of the Bill about the fears in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast of a power grab by the UK Government, taking away from the devolved Governments powers they currently enjoy. The Government respond, of course, that there is no such power grab and the devolved Governments will retain the powers they currently exercise. This amendment puts those assertions to the test. Either the devolved Governments retain the power to determine capital expenditure projects in their territories, or they do not. If they do not, it will be a flagrant violation of the commitments made during the Brexit referendum and the last general election. If the Government insist on retaining the rights to impose capital expenditure projects on and in Wales, it will set alarm bells ringing. There have been press reports of projects such as the construction of reservoirs in Wales, which is an incendiary topic, given our experience over the past century.
Of course, there may be joint projects of mutual interest, but those must be negotiated by the respective Governments, not imposed by Westminster and Whitehall. The days of imperial diktat have long since gone; if there was one dimension which could trigger an avalanche of support for the independence movements, it would be such an approach by Westminster. It is my fear that this Bill, without amendment along the lines that I propose, heralds such a retrograde step—a rolling-back of the freedom we have enjoyed within a European context and its replacement by Westminster central direction of the sort that Wales suffered in the bad old days before devolution. Amendment 67 is in the interest of establishing a stable harmony between the nations of the UK and I urge the Government to accept it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I preface my remarks by saying that what will replace the European structural funds is a matter of interest not only to the devolved Administrations but to the regions, such as Yorkshire, as well. I was fairly agnostic about this group of amendments before the debate commenced but now I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the other noble Lords who tabled these amendments have done the House a great service.
In the briefing on the spending review, the emphasis now appears to be much more on UK-wide spending. It states:
“The Spending Review takes advantages of our departure from the EU to benefit the union. We will ramp up funding, so that total domestic UK-wide funding will at least match EU receipts … for the introduction of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, we will provide additional UK funding to support our communities to pilot programmes and new approaches. We will also deliver £1.1 billion to support farmers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, £20 million to support fisheries—and we will build one freeport in each part of the UK.”
It goes on to say that the spending review is UK-wide and refers to the UK shared prosperity fund and the shared rural network. Although I welcome the funding that has been announced, it is incumbent on us today to find out whether, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the Government are now working around the devolved Administrations rather than with them.
I am particularly concerned with one aspect relating to economic development, which I hope is relevant to this group of amendments. England and Defra have clearly stated that they are committed to phasing out direct payments to farmers from 2021, but the new system involving an environmental land management scheme will not be in place until 2024. As I understand it, however, the Scottish Minister has announced that direct payments to farmers will be retained for the foreseeable future. That begs the question of what the impact on economic development will be for English farmers as opposed to Scottish farmers and whether that will potentially distort the market between England and Scotland. That would seem to flout the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination, which we have heard so much about during the Bill’s passage.
I welcome this debate. I am particularly supportive of Amendments 64 and 67, both of which have been spoken to so eloquently by their authors. I urge my noble friend the Minister to say how the payments under the shared prosperity fund will be distributed. Obviously, I would add a rider that Yorkshire would like to have its fair share of that fund, but it is incumbent on my noble friend to state whether we are departing from what we have become accustomed to under devolution or whether this is simply a red herring.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 64, which seeks to remove Clause 42 from the Bill. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for tabling such an important amendment and for his excellent explanation and analysis of its intent.
Clause 42 empowers the UK Government to provide financial assistance for economic development in any area of the UK. At the outset, I want to make it clear that I have absolutely no objection to the UK Government making investments for economic development in Wales—nor, I believe, would anyone else in Wales. It is the intrusion into devolved powers that is so offensive. Those of us who live in the Objective 1 area of West Wales and the Valleys understand that our economy is weaker than those in other areas of the UK and that we live in one of the poorer regions of Europe. We have appreciated the EU’s investment in the past 20 years; for example, the investment in the A55, which provides such a vital transport link across north Wales, and the projects that we have seen come to fruition under the rural development fund.
In my contributions on Second Reading and in Committee, I said that investment in our region is desperately needed—it was before we received Objective 1 funding and it will be when it ends—but this clause gives the Government extraordinary powers to act in areas of devolved competence and in areas where the EU structural funds have never operated. It is extremely disappointing that, throughout this clause, there is no mention of consultation, joint planning of schemes, joint programmes of work or joint management of projects—all examples of the collaborative approach to investment programmes initiated by the EU that we have become used to. There appears to be no clear setting of objectives, other than, I suspect, that the Government’s prime objective is to see projects in the UK—in the Prime Minister’s words—emblazoned with the union flag. I have no problem with that either. In West Wales and the Valleys we are used to seeing EU blue flags or plaques on projects. They are an indication that the needs of our area have been recognised, and so it would be with the union flag.
There is, however, still no clarity on how needs will be determined and recognised in the UK under the shared prosperity fund, whether projects will be imposed or applications sought and, crucially for us in Wales, what impact there would be on our financial settlement. We still do not know whether a UK Government investment in a road-building programme, for example, would lead to a reduction in the Barnett allocation, or whether projects imposed on us would be financed by loans that require repayment by the Welsh Government. All this curtails the Senedd’s ability to deliver on its objectives and will have an impact on its ability to deliver on its manifesto commitments.
Of all the attacks on the devolution settlements in this Bill, this is probably the most blatant—so much so that the powers and responsibilities of our Parliaments do not even merit a mention. It is another example of the introduction of a new constitutional settlement by stealth, as I referred to in my speech on Monday. It is another item to add to the list of examples fuelling the interest in independence, which, under this UK Government, is reaching a level never seen before in Wales. People are witnessing the performance of an almost colonial Government emanating from Whitehall and comparing it with the more progressive Government and Senedd we see in Wales—a progressive Senedd that voted last week to allow councils to change the electoral system for local elections by introducing the STV system and open up the franchise for local elections to 16 and 17 year-olds in addition to their existing rights to vote in Senedd elections; importantly, it supported voter participation by paving the way for automatic voter registration.
I must admit, I am surprised that, after listening to concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord in Committee and hearing the support for his stance from other noble Lords, the Government have not come back on Report with an amendment of their own that recognises and ameliorates the impact of this clause on the devolved Parliaments.
In a Bill about the regulation of the UK internal market, this clause and its assault on the devolution settlements has no place, and I support Amendment 64 to remove it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be minded to call a Division on the amendment. If he does, he will have the support of these Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I will speak first to government Amendment 66, on how the power in Section 42 will be used. There is a very welcome statement that there is to be an annual report, which can be fully debated in Parliament. We had some discussions about this in Committee, and this amendment is very welcome.
Turning to Amendment 64, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, will not find it offensive if I allude to the fact that I used to own ferrets. Ferrets are beautiful animals, very ingenious and very inquisitive—but of course they have one failing. Sometimes they succeed in catching or flushing out rabbits, but quite often they turn around, get distracted and think of something far less important. Listening to the noble and learned Lord’s introduction to his amendment, it was based, according to him, on finding in paragraph 3.1 of the Red Book something that he thought was relevant to this debate on Clause 42.
I am sufficiently brave to suggest that he has perhaps forgotten what the basic elements of this Bill are. On the front page, it says:
“To make provision in connection with the internal market for goods and services in the United Kingdom … to authorise the provision of financial assistance by Ministers of the Crown in connection with economic development, infrastructure, culture, sport and educational or training activities and exchanges”.
This is what the whole Bill is about. So here we have before us an amendment which is a pretty wide-sweeping reversal of that primary purpose of the Bill. A whole new concept is being proposed in this new clause, at a time when the whole country faces massive challenges arising from Brexit.
After five days looking exhaustively at the Bill in Committee, lo and behold, here we are on Report, and this pretty revolutionary amendment is put forward. For me it is basically pre-empting the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government of the day. It does not matter what the colour of the Government is: in structural terms it pre-empts the Westminster Government, setting up a whole new semi-department, with little oversight and, frankly, huge costs. There does not seem to be any constraint on it at all. In my judgment it is way outside the scope of the Bill and should be rejected.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, in his very clear and crisp outline of the reasons for his Amendment 64, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to my speech in Committee about pork barrelling. The noble and learned Lord helpfully informed us about box 3.1 in the Red Book, which I have not yet had a chance to read but which seems deeply revealing about the Government’s clear political intentions. The smell of roast meat is certainly in the air.
Government Amendment 66, offering retrospective annual transparency, is a slight improvement on the Bill, but so slight that I find the words “slightly better than nothing” rather hard to get out. Considerably better improvement is offered by Amendment 65, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which provides stronger democratic control and devolved Administration involvement. However, that is clearly the opposite of the Government’s apparent intention, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, demonstrated, using their own words. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that this is also of great interest to the English regions, whether Yorkshire, which I hope will soon have a democratic parliament of its own, or Cornwall, which has similar ambitions.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I support Clause 42 and Amendment 66, but I do not support the various other amendments in this group, and in particular I wish to speak against Amendment 64, which seeks to remove the financial assistance power from the Bill.
I have been very concerned, throughout this Bill and again today, at the way in which grievances about devolution have been elevated into some kind of holy crusade which sees only evil in the UK Government. Noble Lords supporting various amendments on this theme have often alleged that the Government are playing a dangerous game with the devolution settlement and that this Bill represents a major power grab which must be resisted. I believe that the only people threatening the constitutional settlement on devolution are those who have set their face against—or at least ignored—the existence and value of our United Kingdom and our precious union.
I have also heard a lot of wishful thinking about the UK as a federation of equal states, which it is not. Many noble Lords have been pretending that “the UK Government” is synonymous with “an English Government”—which is also far from the truth. If there is a gap or weakness, it is that the UK Government and UK Ministers act mainly in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, and England gets left a bit to one side.
The Government have been consistent and clear that they intend to act in the interests of levelling up the whole of the United Kingdom. The actions of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in today’s expenditure review are testament to that, and I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that it is a very fine blue book—a Red Book, I believe, is normally reserved for a Budget Statement.
The UK Government will always act in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, and it is disingenuous of noble Lords to paint a picture of a domineering Government trying to strip powers away from the devolved nations. No powers at all are going to be taken from the devolved nations. Devolved Administrations still have the same powers to spend their money as at present.
Clause 42 creates the power to grant financial assistance across the UK so that it is put beyond doubt that the UK can replicate the sorts of financial flows that existed when the EU took money from the UK and graciously gave a bit of it back to us to use in the way it decided. In future the UK Government will make those decisions about how UK money is directed, rather than Brussels. The guiding light will be the needs of the UK as a whole, although I am sure my noble friend the Minister will confirm that there will be extensive discussions with and the involvement of the devolved Administrations.
Clause 42 talks about financial assistance but let us be clear: this is simply public expenditure. Public expenditure is sourced within the overall fiscal policies of the United Kingdom as set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will be financed by UK taxation or UK borrowing, both of which are carried out by Her Majesty’s Treasury as part of its UK-wide economic policies. These are not matters for the devolved Administrations, however much they might wish otherwise.
Noble Lords really should be careful what they wish for. If Clause 42 is removed from the Bill, noble Lords will remove the mechanism the Government have chosen to funnel public money into their agenda to level up the whole of the UK. How do noble Lords think that the devolved Administrations will get the kinds of money that used to flow via the EU without Clause 42?
Of course, the Government have powers, in general terms, under the appropriation Act to decide upon and distribute public expenditure, but it is a well-known rule and general practice to take a specific legal authority for major expenditure that will be made on a recurrent basis. So the result of taking Clause 42 out of the Bill may well be that the large sums that the devolved nations expected to receive will disappear. Is that really what the noble Lords promoting Amendment 64 want to achieve?
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I again partly apologise to noble Lords because I intended to speak on later amendments and to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, on Amendment 69. I will settle for Amendment 64.
I take exception to the definition of the Long Title from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Whichever way we read it, it is about devolved matters in the United Kingdom. We have only to look at the definition of infrastructure in Clause 42 to see that it absolutely covers devolved matters. His was a bit of a cheap shot at the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to try to imply that this was inconsistent with the Long Title.
My other beef is one I have had in the past regarding Wales and the Barnett formula. I have never understood why the people of Wales, including the politicians, have never risen up. Some years ago I was a member of the Select Committee that looked at the Barnett formula. It was abundantly clear that Wales had been cheated for years. If the Barnett formula was based on need, rather than population, Wales would be on about a third more than it is now. We told leading MPs about this, but I have never noticed any great kickback. Wales has been short-changed under Barnett for years. There is no easy answer to that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was absolutely bang on in delivering the information from box 3.1 out of the Red Book at the beginning of the debate. I thought his eight questions were incredibly telling. I would use the term “pork barrel”, because that is what it is about. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose Statement I heard earlier, made it quite clear that the spending of this money relied on the consent of the constituency Member of Parliament, although I understand that the Treasury might have disowned this since. I tweeted, saying that it is incredibly dangerous for constituency Members of Parliament to be involved in executive functions. Local councils are always involved in executive functions; Members of the House of Commons are not. It is incredibly dangerous territory for them to get involved in, particularly in view of incidents that arose in the past.
I understand that the Treasury might have backpedalled a little on that, but it shows the thought process of those who constructed the Statement today, which is intricately involved with the Bill: destroy devolution, open up the pork barrel and give money to your friends based on the constituency MP. That cannot be a good form of governance. It cuts across devolution massively, whichever way anyone defines it. I have said before that my experiences have been at Defra and MAFF before devolution, then at the Food Standards Agency, which was a four-nation, non-ministerial department at the time. Whitehall has never really done devolution and never really understood what was happening. It has taken a while even for the House of Commons to become clear about the quite distinct advantages of devolution. It all went wrong, of course, when the proportional electoral system gave a majority Government. That is not supposed to happen, but neither, on the other hand, is first past the post designed to give coalitions, which is what we had in 2010. You cannot base the future construct of the constitution on such whims.
Governments come and go and will not be there for ever, but I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said: with devolution now under acute and very massive threat, there is no question but that this will push the independence movements of Wales and Scotland wider and further, particularly in Scotland, where it is stronger. I cannot see a solution to it. I think that we are heading headlong towards the break-up of the union. I will fight like hell to stop that and a lot of people will. The problem is, keeping the fight in words and debate. We are heading for the destruction of our country, without any policy announcement, a clear vote or a manifesto commitment. It is being done by subterfuge and backhanders.
In my view this is the direct effect of the Bill, particularly these attacks on devolution. Amendment 69 covers the same for Clause 44; they are two sides of the same coin. I was going to speak about Amendment 65, but I will leave that to my noble friend. This fundamental attack on devolution, with the push to break up the United Kingdom, is a much more serious affair than has been recognised by your Lordships’ House, where it has been recognised more than in the House of Commons. We need to send a signal to the elected House that our country, our constitution and the make-up of the union are under direct threat as a result of the Bill.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but I could not disagree with what he said more. The threat to our United Kingdom results from the power grab being attempted by devolved authorities, led by nationalist parties, of powers that were never theirs in the first place.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, once again, this has been a very widespread and high-quality debate. To the Minister, who has not had the benefit of the soap opera that you tend to have on Report, I say that we have reached the point that—here I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard—is the meat of this Bill. At Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, many of your Lordships asked why this Bill was necessary. Of course, there was the political and negotiating posturing that came with Part 5, but I put it to your Lordships that one of the central, driving reasons for this Bill is exactly what we are discussing here today: it is so that central government can get its hands on this money and administer it through whatever means it sees fit, because there is no detail on that administration —here, again, I echo the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Some people called it pork-barrel; I would perhaps call it a hobby horse. We saw the benefit of the Prime Minister’s attempts at hobby horses when he was the Mayor of London: we saw the amount of public money that was spent on “Boris Island”, the green bridge and the Emirates wire crossing of the Thames. These are just small potatoes compared to what we could look forward to.
In her speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, characterised those of us on these Benches and in Her Majesty’s Opposition as, somehow, thinking that the Government are evil in this. I make it absolutely clear to the noble Baroness and the Minister that I do not think that she is evil, and we do not have a policy of thinking that the Government are evil. However, we do think that the Government are wrong, and we are allowed to do so. Many of the speeches on the Benches opposite have also been factually wrong on the subject of devolution, and I will correct some of those facts.
However, I will err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt, because I do not believe that the people who drafted this Bill misunderstood devolution in the way that many of the speeches we have heard today have. I believe that there is a very deliberate attempt in this Bill to bypass the processes that have become normal in devolved government and, unless we see actual details as to how this will go forward, this suspicion will only get greater.
Very recently, the Government introduced the notion of the role of local councils. This has come along only in the last 24 to 48 hours in relation to their possibly getting involved in the process of disbursing. I can only assume that it is the antidote to the Prime Minister’s loose lips around devolution, but perhaps the Minister can explain what role the Government see in any future disbursement process for local councils—and, if there is not one, perhaps they can disabuse us of that as well.
My noble friend Lord Purvis set out how the multiannual financial framework works. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who said that the devolved authorities are not having financial powers taken away from them, I say that they most definitely are, because they had functions under EU structural funds and state aid within the fiscal framework which are being withdrawn.
I am afraid that the noble Baroness was similarly wrong on the subject of public finance and tax. If you happen to live in Scotland, as my noble friend Lord Purvis will tell you on many occasions that he does, you pay Scottish income tax, which is set by the Scottish Government: it is a different tax. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would acknowledge that there are differences across this country in the fiscal arrangements for the people who live in the nations of the United Kingdom. Those differences arise through the devolved process, which, somehow, is now being withdrawn and pulled back by this Government under the misapprehension that, by being seen to spend this money, they will somehow become popular. That is not the way to be popular, and it will fail. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, spoke about ferrets. My experience of ferrets is that they usually bite the people who are handling them—so perhaps he should be warned.
I have one final point, which is a question that I really do want an answer to—it is not a rhetorical question. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised the interesting point about how the markets could get distorted. I would like the Minister to explain the role of the office for the internal market in this. As we have discussed in previous amendments, considerable powers are being vested in the OIM, not least Clause 31 powers, so can the Minister confirm that the OIM will be able to investigate the UK Government’s use of the powers that they seek in Clauses 42 and 43 to investigate whether this distorts the market? Can the Minister also confirm that devolved authorities will be able to request such an investigation from the CMA?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am going to say much the same things as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, but I will focus a little on my Amendment 65, which has been supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, as well as offering support from the Opposition Benches for Amendment 64 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and—if it is treated as consequential—Amendment 68.
The last time she joined us, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, responded to my amendment on the shared prosperity fund with a very full and useful speech, part of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has already quoted. It was helpful to hear, because it was so clear what the purpose behind the new approach to the shared prosperity fund was to be. Although she may have to slightly change the way she expresses it when she responds in a few minutes, she confirmed, stressing the collaborative nature of the future, that this would
“allow the UK Government to complement and strengthen the support given to citizens in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, without taking away devolved Administrations’ responsibilities.”
That is all good stuff, but she went on to say—this was not quoted by the noble and learned Lord earlier—that
“the response to Covid has shown how the UK Government … can save jobs and support communities. This could only have been delivered strategically and at that scale by the UK Government.”
That interesting formulation has been much explored during this debate. I do not think the Minister will find much support across the House for that statement.
The Minister went on to say:
“The UK Government are uniquely positioned to level up across every part of the UK”. —[Official Report, 2/11/20; col. 596.]
That also needs to be challenged. It is the sort of thinking from which comes the “Westminster knows best” process, which has been criticised, and spending decisions being taken against the advice of those in the best position to know about them. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, this may lead to follies of the type of the garden bridge and, perhaps, the much-mooted bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland, which seems to be the answer to the Northern Ireland protocol problem.
I will talk a little about Amendment 65. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for talking about the work done in your Lordships’ House on a critique of the Barnett formula. He is absolutely right: if that formula had been replaced by something of a different nature, the funding levels in Wales and Scotland would have changed, because of inward immigration to Wales and external emigration from Scotland. There has been a change in the population levels which has not been reflected in settlements. The system does not command much love and affection, let alone support.
The proposal in Amendment 65 challenges the Government to think again about how they might wish to do the shared prosperity fund. If it is not clear, because the drafting is somewhat complicated, it is based on a model to which the closest analogue would be the Low Pay Commission. Despite allegations to the contrary, it weighs heavily on subsidiarity and proportionality as the principles under which it might be set up. Under the proposal in Amendment 65, it is the Secretary of State who sets the level of the fund, it is clearly the Government’s funding and their authority to set a level every year for that is not, in any sense, taken away. What the amendment does is to mandate consultation and provide an alternative, needs-based basis for judging the bids. As set out in proposed new subsection (11), this approach looks at an area’s proportion of children below the poverty line, low income, economic weakness, the age structure of the population, the impact of the pandemic and the impact of climate change—something we might want to consider more fully, though it has also been picked up today.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her kind words. For anyone in the Official Opposition to be ruled as “intelligent and thoughtful” is almost too much to take, but it probably rules out any further consideration of my amendment. It would not do to be seen to be endorsing that, would it?
As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, if Amendments 64 and 68 are passed, there will be a bit of a hole in the Government’s thinking on this area. They might want to think again about how do to that by looking at this amendment, certainly in the context of the responses to the now notorious box 3.1. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, on being able to adapt his speech to take account of the fact that he could have had only a few minutes to look at that box. His critique of it was spot on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, box 3.1 is based on the assumption that the Government will receive the new financial assistance powers in this Bill—it says so straight out, at the beginning. It is also interesting that this is clearly a top-down approach:
“The government will develop a UK-wide framework for investment in places receiving funding and prioritising: investment in people … investment in communities … investment for local businesses”.
There is nothing exceptional or egregious about the list of things to do, but the idea that there is a top-down approach jars with everything we have been doing in the last 20 years to develop a much more responsive, local environment.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I begin by reminding noble Lords of the purpose of this part of the Bill. The power to provide financial assistance supports the Government’s determination to deliver on the commitments on which they were elected: levelling up and delivering prosperity across the whole United Kingdom, and strengthening the ties that bind our union together. It provides for a unified power that operates consistently UK-wide—one which will allow for strategic investment throughout the UK, underpinning the Government’s determination to see all parts of the UK flourish. It makes sure that we meet our manifesto commitment to deliver a UK shared prosperity fund which allows the Government to invest in communities across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Previously, in many of these areas, the EU mandated how our money had to be spent, with little say from elected politicians in the United Kingdom. The UK Government intend to take a much more collaborative approach in delivering any funding that replaces EU programmes.
In this context, I will speak to Amendments 64 and 68, which seek to remove Clauses 42 and 43. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, asked why such a power should be included in this Bill. The ability of the UK Government to invest in and support businesses and communities in all parts of our union, as these clauses provide for, helps to achieve a stronger and fairer internal market. Indeed, this is the argument the EU makes on the role of European structural and investment funds in strengthening the European single market. It is right that, as we leave at the end of the transition period, the UK Government have the right tools to make sure the whole country can benefit from investment which strengthens communities, economies and connectivity within and between all parts of the UK.
Another point of focus from noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, among others, was the role of the devolved Administrations and other local partners, including local authorities. Let me be clear: this power is in addition to the devolved Administrations’ existing powers. It will allow the UK Government to complement and strengthen the support given to citizens, businesses and communities in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. It does not take away responsibilities from the devolved Administrations. Rather, the power will enable the UK Government to deliver investment more flexibly and dynamically and in collaboration with the devolved Administrations and other partners.
We have taken a collaborative approach to investment with devolved Administrations already, for example through our successful city deals programme, as noble Lords have talked about. The UK Government intend to continue to work in this spirit of partnership with stakeholders. We will make sure that this new power can facilitate UK government support for projects, making it far more responsive and responsible for addressing the needs of communities and businesses throughout the country.
We have seen how important this can be. Colleagues on these Benches and in the other place have already noted that our experiences of Covid-19 have demonstrated the value of a responsive UK Government. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, questioned the support in this House for that statement; I tend to disagree, unless the party opposite does not support the furlough scheme and the Bounce Back Loan Scheme that have protected thousands of jobs and businesses across the UK during this pandemic. To make sure that the UK Government can deliver on this ambition for all parts of the UK, I hope these amendments will be withdrawn or not pressed.
Turning to government Amendment 66, we listened carefully to the debate by noble Lords on this part of the Bill in Committee, where questions were asked on how the clause would operate. Through Amendment 66, the Government seek to introduce a requirement in Clause 43 to report annually to Parliament on the use of this power to provide financial assistance. This would put a requirement in legislation to provide a summary on the use of the power for scrutiny by parliamentarians, other key partners and the wider public. This is in addition to the scrutiny role that Parliament already performs for public spending through voting on the spending allocations, as part of the estimates process and in line with the principle of the PAC concordat.
This requirement makes sure that key partners, including devolved Administrations, have transparency on where funding under the power has been directed. Any future funding decisions are subject to fiscal events. Accordingly, the requirement added by Amendment 66 requires a summary of the use of the power in the previous financial year. I hope your Lordships’ House will agree that this government amendment improves the opportunity for Parliament to see and scrutinise financial assistance provided under the power in Clause 42.
I will now discuss Amendments 65 and 67. Amendment 65 would mean that this new clause would seek to establish a UK shared prosperity fund commissioner, whose primary task would be to make recommendations for the disbursement of the UK shared prosperity fund. Amendment 67 would mean that financial assistance for economic development would be managed and administered through the devolved Administrations. As I have said, this power to provide financial assistance is wider than any single fund or organisation. It will ensure that the UK Government are well positioned to deliver financial assistance, following the end of the transition period, and to replace EU structural funds. It is crucial that the UK Government can use successor funds to invest strategically and have the additional flexibility needed to invest across the whole UK that this power provides. These amendments, including the establishment of a commissioner, would curtail that flexibility. In addition, decisions on governance for the fund should not be made through legislation.
Noble Lords are, however, right to seek progress on the UK shared prosperity fund. The Covid-19 pandemic presented exceptional circumstances, and it is right that our focus and priorities shift accordingly. The Government have conducted a one-year spending review to prioritise the response to Covid-19 and focus on supporting jobs. However, in these challenging times it is important we do not lose sight of our long-term objectives. I reassure my noble friend Lord Trenchard that investment under EU structural funds peaks next year and will tail off until 2023, with spending in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland remaining higher than the annual average.
To ensure a seamless transition from EU structural funds into the UK shared prosperity fund, we announced additional spending today in the spending review to help local areas prepare over 2021-22 for the introduction of the UK shared prosperity fund, supporting our communities to pilot programmes and new approaches. As noble Lords have also referenced, we have published the heads of terms setting out our plans for the shared prosperity fund.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, asked whether the spending would be efficient and effective. The bureaucratic burden of EU programmes meant that places have had to wait a long time before they received any funding. Places typically see no investment in their communities until at least a year after the programmes have started. The provision of additional funding next year will be quick and responsive; it will be phased in as EU investment declines.
The heads of terms also set out that there will be two portions of the fund: one targeting places most in need to support people and communities to open up new opportunities; and a second targeted differently at people most in need through bespoke employment and skills programmes, again tailored to local need. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, noted—I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who had not seen the spending review document, will take some reassurance from this—the terms also state that investment should be aligned with the Government’s clean growth and net-zero objectives.
We have not taken back control over investment to hoard it in Whitehall or to roll over EU prescriptions on how we invest in our local economies. Local places across the UK will be able to shape investment to reflect their needs. This means a strong role for local partners across the UK. The UK Government intend to work with devolved Administrations and local communities to ensure this power is used to best effect and that the UK shared prosperity fund supports citizens across the UK. This includes engaging with local authorities and devolved Administrations, as well as wider public and private sector organisations. I reassure noble Lords that the Government have held 26 engagement events across the UK on plans for the shared prosperity fund, including 16 events in devolved Administrations, and that UK government officials regularly speak with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations to discuss the design and operation of the fund to ensure it supports every part of the UK.
Further details on additional funding for next year will be published in a prospectus in the new year. We will set out further details on the UK shared prosperity fund in the UK-wide investment framework, to be published in the spring. A multiyear profile will be set out at the next spending review.
The short answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his final question on the role of the office for the internal market is no. It looks only at Parts 1 to 3 of the Bill and relevant effects, so it would not look at decisions under this power.
Given the further details I have set out today, I encourage noble Lords not to press their amendments.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I have received requests to ask a short question from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Purvis of Tweed. I call the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to ask a short question for elucidation.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the Government’s levelling-up agenda but, having listened to the noble Baroness, they seem to have a fundamentally different approach to how this should be achieved from what has been a shared consensus for the last 20 years or so. We all thought the way to achieve levelling up, economic development and all the other things mentioned in Clause 42 was through devolution, bringing economic powers closer to the people. That was the logic of Scottish and Welsh devolution and the logic of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Cameron Government, George Osborne, who promoted the northern powerhouse, the Midlands engine and all the rest. The Government now seem to be saying, “We want to run the show centrally”. Is that so?
Do the Government not recognise that all this talk about the EU directing how the funds were spent is nonsense? I was very involved with the North West Development Agency; we directed how the funds were spent from that agency. Are the Government not proposing to weaken the powers that the devolved bodies have over structural funds? Finally, is it not the case, as I have been told—someone made a cursory reading of the Red Book—that next year the Government are allocating £220 million to the shared prosperity fund, which is a far lower sum than was available under the EU structural funds?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am not sure that the noble Lord’s first questions cover points that we have not covered in this debate already but, for clarity, this does not change the devolution settlements. We are talking about a UK-wide investment programme that will work in collaboration with the devolved Administrations, local partners and local authorities.
I am very happy to clear up the noble Lord’s point about £220 million. That is in addition to money that is still coming through the EU structural funds, which will continue to flow until 2023. As I believe I said in my speech, each of the nations will continue to receive the same level of funding, if not a bit more. That first year of funding is for pilot projects and to aid the transition to the shared prosperity fund, which will then ramp up and there will be a multi-year settlement for that fund in the next spending review.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said to be careful what you wish for. She intimated that, in the event of Clause 44 being deleted from the Bill, the shared prosperity funding being discussed might be withheld completely. Can the Minister state clearly, with a simple yes or no, whether it is indeed the Government’s policy that, without Clause 44, the funding will be withheld or diminished?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that I can go any further than what has been announced in the spending review today: that it is the Government’s intention to use the powers under this Bill to deliver the shared prosperity fund.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for attempting to answer my final question but I fear that she may have been wrongly advised. Clause 31 states:
“The CMA may from time to time undertake a review”.
Subsection 1(b) certainly points to “Parts 1 to 3”, as in the Minister’s answer. However, subsection 1(a) says that such a review can refer to
“the internal market in the United Kingdom”,
which is a far broader swathe than the narrow answer given just now.
While I am up and reading the legislation, subsection (2) states:
“The CMA may receive and consider any proposals that may be made or referred to it for undertaking a review”.
Can the Minister confirm that the devolved authorities are one of the bodies that can request such a review of the whole UK internal market as in Clause 31(1)(a), rather than the answer that was just given?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord will probably be unsurprised to know that the advice I have received has not changed in the short time since he asked his further question. I will commit to reviewing that advice; if any part of it was not accurate, I will write to the noble Lord. My understanding is that those reviews do not refer to the powers in this Bill, and whether the devolved Administrations or others can refer matters to the CMA for review relates to other parts of this Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister gave a number of examples of how the UK Government are currently able, under their powers, to fund UK priorities across all parts of the United Kingdom. The Government do not have the legislative powers to spend on devolved areas within devolved competencies. What powers are the Government seeking to have by January next year for them to spend on devolved policy areas in our devolved nations?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government are seeking the power under this Bill to spend across the whole of the United Kingdom in the areas set out in the Bill. The operation of the £220 million announced at the spending review will start from the next financial year and the full shared prosperity fund will begin the year after. More detail on how that will operate will be set out in due course.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for referring to the document published today as the Red Book instead of its true colour which, as one sees on the screen, is blue. I was misled by the heading Google has for it, which is the Red Book.
However, Google had another use because it took up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and alerted me to the fact that the great and late Senator McCain had a member of staff who would go through Bills before Congress and find where there were pork-barrel provisions. He was known as the ferret, so ferrets do have great uses in politics.
To return to the points made, it is clear from the debate that we all share a number of objectives: first, to have a more prosperous United Kingdom; secondly, to spend the money wisely; and thirdly, to spend it in a way that is effective and goes to those areas that need it. We all believe that such spending and levelling up will benefit the union. However, there is profound disagreement as to the way in which this should work with our devolution settlement. It seems to me from the response given to my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed and from the Minister’s speech that only one conclusion can be drawn from what the Minister is saying and that these powers are needed not to spend the money outside the areas of devolved competence but to spend it in the areas of devolved competence. That is the aspect that fundamentally divides us and is fundamentally wrong about this clause. It seems to me that, given the Minister’s position and the clarity that comes through her statements, this is a direct attack on devolution under the guise of some other words. Therefore, I seek to press to a Division the amendment that I tabled to remove this clause, which is so destructive of our union.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 66 and 67 have been pre-empted.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 68A. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 68A
“State aid and the Office for the Internal Market
(1) Within the period of six months beginning with the day on which section 30 comes into force, and within the existing budget, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish the Office for the Internal Market (“the OIM”) as independent of the CMA.(2) The Secretary of State must consult and seek the consent of Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland on appointments to the OIM.(3) Following public consultation about the United Kingdom’s state aid provisions and with the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State may by regulations make the OIM the competent body for—(a) investigating harmful and distortive subsidies and subsidy races made by any administration within the United Kingdom and relating to harm in the United Kingdom;(b) recommending to the Secretary of State and the Devolved Administrations changes to the test for a harmful subsidy, remedies, the scope of exemptions and time limits on approvals;(c) recommending changes in its powers and functions.(4) After two years and before three years, beginning with the day on which section 30 comes into force, there shall be a review of the competences of the OIM.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, borrows much from other amendments tabled in Committee and on Report, and credit is due to the authors of those amendments.
This amendment has three purposes. The first is to take the OIM out of the CMA after six months and set it up independently, using the budget already allocated for that purpose. For appointments to the OIM the Secretary of State must consult and seek the consent of Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.
The second purpose is enabling, not compulsory. It is to allow the OIM to become the competent body to investigate harmful and distorted subsidies and subsidy races made by any Administration within the United Kingdom that relate to harm within the United Kingdom. This can happen only after public consultation about state aid provisions, which the Government have already said will take place, and requires the consent of the devolved Administrations. The OIM will also, subject to the devolved Administrations’ agreement, be empowered to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for changes to the tests for harmful subsidies, and to its powers and functions. Finally, there is to be a general review of the competence of the OIM between three and five years after Section 30 comes into force.
The changes, following the devolved Administrations’ agreement, can be brought about by affirmative regulation. Overall, the amendment solves the problem of the unsatisfactory location of the OIM in the CMA and gives a vision for the consensual evolution of the OIM in its investigations of subsidy effects.
We have already debated, in Committee and since, why the CMA is not the right body. The mismatch stems from three sources. First, the CMA is expert in matters that are reserved, not devolved. Secondly, the CMA deals largely with disturbances to the market caused by market participants, whether that be through anti-competitive activities such as cartels, or through market concentration—which is culturally very different from looking at the actions of Administrations as they affect markets in the context of devolution. Thirdly, the tie to BEIS does not make it neutrally positioned in how it is embedded, or perceived, no matter what its objectives may be.
To some extent this proposal follows the TRA precedent of setting up in one location and spinning off, utilising whatever preliminary work has been done. Furthermore, if there is to be a body to examine subsidies —and it is an ‘if’ that can develop in the light of experience—an independent OIM, specialising in the workings of devolution, would seem the right home. As required, I give notice that it is my intention to test the opinion of the House on this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
I support this amendment, the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on these matters, and the need to have the OIM and CMA working at arm’s length. I have spoken several times on the need to have an office of the internal market that is at arm’s length from all government and is responsive to the needs and reservations of every nation—Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and, yes, England. I would prefer the OIM to be required to obtain the consent of all four nations, but I accept the wording in this amendment as a significant step in the right direction. I am very happy to support it and to vote for it if a vote is taken.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Flight, does not appear to be present in the Chamber and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I cannot support this amendment. We had a considerable debate on the OIM in Committee. There are already too many examples in the United Kingdom of where a service can be challenged, one way or the other, particularly in the financial services area, where there is the Financial Services Authority and the appeal mechanism of the Financial Ombudsman Service.
My experience is in the area of what are called doorstep loans. There is, of course, a rogue element, and that must be dealt with, but genuine operators have been servicing that market for decades, including the credit unions and two or three other companies of the highest repute. However, at some point the FSA may say that what they are doing is absolutely right, while five minutes later somebody has appealed and the ombudsman says the opposite.
We must have a uniform, single agency to deal with. The decision made by the Government to put the OIM underneath—for want of a better phrase—the CMA is absolutely right. This amendment would be a retrograde step that would confuse everybody.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, I am a strong supporter of the Bill and believe that it is important to allow the UK’s internal market to function, but I genuinely believe that the location of the office for the internal market is problematic. I fully support the OIM itself, as it will be essential to monitor the effectiveness of the UK’s internal market. However, the CMA is the wrong place for it at the wrong time.
It is the wrong place because monitoring the internal market is a radically different activity from the core functions of the CMA. To oversimplify, the CMA is focused on businesses which can and do behave badly on competition. By contrast, the office for the internal market will not target individual businesses or sectors; its targets will end up being the Administrations of the devolved nations or their regulators if they act in a way that undermines the internal market. Businesses trying to trade throughout the UK should be the beneficiaries of the OIM’s work, not the villains. Most of the CMA’s battles are fought on legal and economic analysis, which are often big battles with a lot at stake but a world apart from the kind of political battle in which CMA may find itself pitted against one of the devolved Administrations.
In Committee, I said that putting two different activities into a single organisation ran the risk of that organisation being a jack of all trades and master of none. Having thought about that further, it is potentially worse. If the CMA and the OIM get embroiled in long political feuds about restrictions on trade within the internal market, it could be very damaging to the CMA’s focus, which may take away from the attention it gives to its core competition-based work. We may end up throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is also the wrong time to put the OIM into the CMA, given the significant increase in size as it takes on additional activities following our departure from the EU. Organisations that try to take on too much and do too many things at once often end up achieving very little.
For those reasons, I support creating the office for the internal market as a separate body. I cannot, however, support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, because it has gone beyond the simple purpose of setting up an independent OIM and has strayed into state aid, with its own version of how that may be taken on in future. That goes too far.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support the main thrust of the amendment, as I explained in Committee when leading a debate on my amendment, for which there was considerable support across the House. There is a good case for establishing a UK office for the internal market, but the CMA is the wrong home, for all the reasons that my noble friend Lady Noakes articulated so well. The CMA operates with values—notably a deep suspicion of the good business can do and an aggressive approach to enforcement—that are not appropriate to the new office.
Subsections (1) and (2) of the proposed new clause come from an earlier amendment which, frustratingly, was not moved, and are on the right lines. However, the proposed subsection (3) is not sensible. If any of the devolved Administrations withhold consent for appointments on whatever grounds, the whole purpose of the new office could be stymied. One is reminded of President Trump and the World Trade Organization, when unexpected and unforeseen actions by an elected officeholder—in this case, the President—in an advanced and democratic country came close to wrecking the operations of a major component of the global economic order. We would be foolish voluntarily to run such a risk.
It may be argued that it is unlikely the devolved Administrations will act like President Trump or that this is an issue of the same order. I would retort that, five years ago, it was deemed impossible by all informed observers that a US President would act as he has towards the WTO. Life can contain surprises, and we act foolishly if we unnecessarily set up arrangements that risk being sabotaged.
Accordingly, I call on the Minister to agree to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading that incorporates proposed new subsections (1), (2) and (5) of Amendment 68A, which seem entirely sensible and widely supported. I regret that I cannot support Amendment 68A as it stands.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I now call the noble Lord, Lord Flight.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for having to move my timing, but I had to get something urgently for my wife.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I regret that I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Flight, was here for the start of the debate and, therefore, cannot speak. His name has already been called.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I apologise. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, told me that he was here at the start of the debate, but that is not so. I am sorry, Lord Flight. In that case, I cannot call you, as you were not here at the start of the debate.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the debate on this amendment has been relatively short, but the Minister should not conclude from that that it is unimportant. The reason why the debate has been short is that it crystallises points that have recurred since Second Reading, through Committee and in various discussions on other groups of amendments, around the basic suitability of the CMA as a home for the OIM. That is the central point.
I am pleased to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, whose analysis of the concerns around the location of the OIM I completely concur with. They conclude that they do not necessarily like the full nature of this amendment, and I respect that point. This amendment is the culmination of several other attempted amendments but, without it, we will not get the focus on this issue that we need from the Minister. Even though it may be a bitter pill to swallow for the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, we need to get somewhere to concentrate minds—and this is the amendment.
It was ably set out by my noble friend Lady Bowles, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will also set out a good case, so I will not point to any more issues. I simply say that this is a really important issue, which will colour the culture of the market in this country and how it is run. I had not considered the point brought up by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that it may also jeopardise the CMA’s current role, which is a good point and well made. This is an important amendment to get behind. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches will vote for this amendment when it is put, and I hope that other noble Lords, who find problems with some words in this amendment, will stave that to one side and consider that, without it, we cannot change the culture of how the market will be run in future.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Fox, as I will not go through my arguments at length, because they have been made so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I put on record my absolute support for the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, who, while they have comments about the detail of the amendment, support the principle of it. I am grateful to them for that.
It is a simple proposition: the internal market must work and be seen to work for all and, therefore, must have buy-in and support from all. It should not favour one geographical area or country over another. It is important that we do not upset the balance struck in the CMA and its functions. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is right that there may be an adverse impact on the CMA, if it is forced to take on something that is not its primary purpose. Thirdly, the devolved Administrations need to be part of the organisation, its process and appointments.
There are reservations about proposed new subsections (3) and (4) in the amendment. It is beyond our hopes, but perhaps the Minister will consider bringing forward an agreed amendment at Third Reading. If he did, we would support it but, if he will not do that, we will support the noble Baroness if she tests the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank noble Lords who participated in the debate, particularly for their brevity. This is, I suspect, a simple difference of opinion, but I will give it a go anyway.
In previous groupings we have discussed the detail of how the office for the internal market would be governed, including the composition of its board, and so noble Lords will be delighted that I am not going to go through all that again. I have set out consistently in this House why the CMA was chosen as, in our view, the most appropriate body to undertake the new UK internal market oversight functions. The CMA has an outstanding international reputation as an independent regulator and is already equipped with highly relevant economic expertise, necessary to undertake its new functions in the context of the operation of the UK market. Moreover, the CMA has well-established relationships with all the Administrations, with offices in London, Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff. This UK-wide presence will help ensure that the OIM will work in the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom.
However, we have made it clear that some bespoke arrangements for the OIM will be necessary, in recognition of the focus on devolved matters. As provided for in the Bill, the OIM will be able to benefit from the CMA’s existing expertise and operate within its overall framework, while having its own functions and powers, including distinct governance arrangements such as the OIM panel and task groups. The Government have recognised that some degree of separation is vital and have developed proposals for the OIM accordingly. I wish to strongly emphasise that the distinct statutory objective for the OIM, and for the targeted adaptation in the Bill of the CMA’s statutory framework, enshrines this separation from the outset.
On Monday, we had a good debate on the composition of the board and the role of the devolved Administrations in appointments. The Government have taken a number of reasonable and pragmatic steps to secure the appropriate balance between ensuring that the devolved Administrations have a real say and that the appointment process is not held up unduly—that would, of course, be risked by the amendment.
Finally, I would like to discuss in a little more detail how this amendment would seek to propose a new role for the OIM regarding subsidy control. I recognise that the amendment reflects a desire for reassurance on the enforcement of any future UK subsidy control regime. However, we believe that it risks undermining and prejudging the outcome of the forthcoming consultation that we have announced. This consultation will inform our future approach to subsidy control, including the role of oversight and enforcement.
The Government have been clear that the UK will have its own approach to subsidy control; we want a modern system for supporting British business in a way that fulfils our interests. The amendment is therefore premature, as it seeks to confer specific regulatory functions on the OIM in respect of subsidies before the wider details of any legislative UK domestic subsidy control regime, including the appropriate mechanism for oversight and enforcement, have been developed and brought before this House or the other place.
On another point that we will discuss in more depth in our next debate, the Government’s view is that state aid—the EU’s approach to subsidy control—is a reserved matter. Therefore, the effect of the amendment’s provisions for consent from the DAs would be to create unacceptable uncertainty over the extent to which subsidy control is a reserved or devolved competence. As an issue of national importance, it should be treated in the same way as other nationally significant areas of economic policy, which are reserved. Having a single unified approach to subsidy control across the United Kingdom is vital to ensure that we continue to have fair and open competition across our internal market.
Finally, proposed new subsection (4) would require a review of the OIM’s competences within two or three years after Clause 30 enters into force. I recognise the need to ensure that the CMA’s new functions are undertaken effectively, but the broadness of this proposed review is unprecedented and unhelpful.
For the reasons that I have set out, therefore, I am obviously unable to support this amendment. I ask—perhaps more in hope than in expectation—the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all those who have participated in this short debate. Some very telling points have been made, yet again, regarding separating the OIM from the CMA.
As noble Lords will know, this is not the first amendment to include proposed subsections (1), (2) and (5); indeed, we had hoped to be able to vote on that amendment, but the timing did not work. I will not conceal from your Lordships that this amendment was constructed so that we had something to vote on.
It is important. The parts that extract the OIM from the CMA are immediately functional. The rest is written so that it is fail-safe—and perhaps, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, astutely pointed out, it may never happen. It does not stop there being some further primary legislation to make it happen, but, of course, there are restrictions on what it is possible to put in when there are identical amendments already tabled. Therefore, this is not the end of the road on the wording of this amendment, but it does a lot more good than harm by inserting it into the Bill at this stage. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to Amendment 69. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press an amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 44: Regulation of distortive or harmful subsidies
Amendment 69
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove provisions changing the legislative competence of the devolved legislatures to prevent devolved Acts making provision about the regulation of the provision of certain subsidies by public authorities.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, in a way this issue is much simpler because Clause 44 has been put in with one purpose only: to alter the devolution scheme. I intend to move that it be removed from the Bill and, if necessary, I will press this to a Division.
I ought to say from the outset that the regime of state aid is plainly necessary, and it is necessary to have one for the whole of the UK, as I will explain in a moment. It is necessary first to say a little about the background. Until relatively recently, the British Government’s stated position had been to retain the EU regime and put in place an independent body, such as the CMA, that would police it. Whether it was like the Commission or whether it was advisory was something to be worked out. Obviously, that would not have required any change to the devolution scheme because we would have been proceeding as we had during our membership of the EU.
However, the present Government decided to change that, and they intend to use Henry VIII powers to do so by statutory instrument. That instrument has been drafted and is no doubt to be debated soon. It has been considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has concluded, and I think it important that noble Lords hear its conclusion:
“The House will be aware of the Committee’s concern, raised on several previous occasions, that secondary legislation is being used to introduce policy changes about important issues which should more properly be the subject of primary legislation, thus affording a higher degree of parliamentary scrutiny. This is another such occasion and one on a subject that appears central to the UK’s negotiation position with the EU. We take the view that it is neither a welcome nor indeed acceptable use of secondary legislation”.
That is a clear intimation that we should look at this in a proper debate on state aid.
Obviously, that is for another occasion, but if that instrument is passed and the EU regime is revoked, the Government’s position is very simple, and we will live under this regime for the next several months—that is, the World Trade Organization rules will apply. We, as the United Kingdom, are bound by them as a matter of treaty obligations and the devolved Governments are bound to follow World Trade Organization rules in relation to subsidies. Of course, it will be without any direct policing authority, but that is the course that has been decided on, so there is no urgency about this issue and I will return to that in a moment. Of course, the position could change.
I very much hope that there will be a deal with the EU, and no doubt there is a prospect that a deal may deal with the subsidy regime, but at the moment we have to proceed on the assumption that, first, the current regime will be withdrawn, and that we will move to the WTO regime. That is the background.
Secondly, I emphasise again that this is not an amendment suggesting that the UK does not needed a regime. It is perfectly obvious that any internal market has to have a state aid regime, just as world trade has to have a set of state aid rules, weak though the WTO rules are on this issue. One cannot see a stronger argument for a properly thought through regime of state aid than in the recently published paper of the Institute for Government Beyond State Aid. It explains why it is necessary, how it should be done, what should be done before it is established and that it should be widely consulted on. Of course, there has been a lot of time to do this, but nothing has been done.
I think it must be accepted that the Government desire to proceed. Why they want to do so now is unclear, but they believe that they have hit a snag, which is the fact that for the time of our membership of the European Union we lived with the devolved Governments dealing with all these issues and, as I outlined in the previous debate, this competence is not reserved. Therefore, unashamedly, the Government want to use this legislation to alter the devolution settlements. Whereas in other parts of the Bill I have been critical of the fact that the Government are trying to do something by stealth, here what they are trying to do is much clearer. What they are trying to do is, if I may say so, not open dealing or being straightforward. They are trying to make state aid a reserved matter by the device of expanding or extending the competition policy reservation. If they wanted to do this properly, one would have expected it to be dealt with in a much more straightforward manner.
The real issue is how should we now proceed, and there are three alternatives. The first, obviously, is to leave this clause in the Bill. I will come back to that in a moment. The second is to work out a policy and enact it by primary legislation. The third is to use the common frameworks. I shall deal with the second of those suggestions first.
If there is to be a state aid policy, it cannot be denied that it would need widespread consultation. If we were to go down this route, the Government would need to carefully craft legislation and bring it before Parliament. If, in such legislation, there is a need to change the devolution settlements, that can be in the Bill so that we know what is required and how it can be dealt with. That is one solution. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot do that, because we will be living under a World Trade Organization regime in the interim and the devolved Governments will be bound by that.
Secondly, to my mind a much more attractive way forward is to use a common framework. I regret that this matter came up in Committee very late on a night when, as the Minister will remember, we were all fairly exhausted at the end of the debate on Part 5. I hope he will recall that I then suggested that maybe one way forward was a common framework.
Having the privilege of being a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, I raised the question of a common framework with the Counsel General for Wales, Mr Jeremy Miles, and the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs in the Scottish Government, Mr Michael Russell. They expressed a view that this was a way forward. Last night the Counsel General wrote in very clear terms, and I hope that the letter has safely reached the Minister and many others. He made it clear that state aid had always featured on the list of common frameworks but there had been no progression. He continued:
“The Welsh Government has been clear that it would wish there to be a single state aid subsidy control regime for the whole of the United Kingdom, or at least for Great Britain if the Northern Irish protocol makes this impossible, provided it is co-designed by all the Governments which have to implement it. I therefore wish to make a clear and unequivocal offer on behalf of the Welsh Government. If the Government will remove Clause 44 and agree without prejudice to its legal position to participate in discussions on a legislative framework on state subsidy control, we will commit in good faith to work intensively on such a framework on a tight timetable to reach agreement within three months of the Government tabling a proposal, or in any event by 31 March next year. In the meantime, we will commit to not put forward any primary or secondary legislation to the Senedd which in any way touches on the regulation of state aid subsidies until these discussions have concluded.”
So there is a plain offer of a way forward on the table. That is the second alternative.
The third alternative is to proceed with this clause. I urge noble Lords to take the view that it would be quite wrong to do so. At this stage there is no clear knowledge of what the policy will be. It is not clear what changes, if any, need making to the devolution settlements. The appropriate time to make such a change would be with the policy properly devised and the powers that are needed.
I urge noble Lords to take the view that tackling all this now, with this proposal to change the devolution settlements without a policy by this back-door device of altering the competition reservation, is wrong. It would be better by far to work out what is needed and, if possible, to proceed by a common framework, because that will produce a legal regime with no doubt proper enforcement powers across the UK. We should not put this in at the tail end of a Bill without proper thought as to the context. There is time to do this: the WTO regime will tide matters over until a common framework is agreed or until there is legislation. I therefore move the amendment and I will be prepared to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for putting forward so much detail behind this amendment, which clearly lays out the course of action that could be dealt with and also talks about the way the Government propose to take these matters forward. I think that my job is to amplify some of his points and perhaps to extend them as well. I refer to the offer from the Welsh Government, which I presume has also been made by the Scottish Government at the same time: that was the indication I received last night, and perhaps the Minister could confirm that this letter from Scotland has been received as well.
This clause proposes a major recentralisation of power. It is a far cry, for those of us who live in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, from the cry of bringing back our laws, because state aid is currently not a reserved power, despite the Government’s protestation that it is and always has been. Annexe 1 of the Explanatory Notes for the Bill clearly lays out that it is not a reserved matter, but the Bill, of course, makes it say so. I reiterate at the start that we on these Benches want to see a single state aid regime for the whole United Kingdom, but that regime has to be to a design on which all four parts of the United Kingdom have collaborated. If they are not prepared to do this, as this clause lays out, they will not get a legislative consent Motion from either of the devolved Parliaments or from the Northern Ireland Assembly. In fact, in his letter to the Secretary of State for BEIS yesterday, the Counsel General for Wales said:
“Even if we resolve all the other issues, this alone”—
that is, this clause—
“would make it impossible for me to recommend legislative consent to the Bill as it now stands.”
That is crucial, because it says something about the relationship that this clause makes between the four nations of this United Kingdom. It is not a way to respect our devolution settlement and, importantly, not a way to respect the union we have within the United Kingdom.
EU state aid policy is established through the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and directly applicable regulations following on from that treaty. That was in place of having directives that would have required us to transpose these matters into UK law. In response to the House of Lords report on state aid, the Government said:
“We note that in practice the existing EU rules have always been sufficiently flexible to allow the UK to make innovative aid interventions when necessary.”
So the Government do not believe that there has been a problem in the way that this operated with the EU, and now they are intent on eating their own words, bringing back the rules, converting them into a straitjacket regime and not providing the flexibility that the countries in our union previously enjoyed. They also add that it would be “harmful” if this were dealt with in any other way.
A more co-operative and consensual approach is needed. The clause we are seeking to remove assumes that divergence will happen, and decrees that there shall be no divergence. Blunting and reducing the power of the devolved authorities is deemed to be a price worth paying so that the UK Government alone can determine the route they wish to follow in directing the new regime. Yet we do not know what this regime will look like. There is no sign of the detail or the choices the Government propose to take.
What this clause does, no matter what consultation the Government may eventually engage in, is drive their own agenda—an agenda that primarily has to support England. That, by the way, is no way to provide business with the certainty it is seeking. In fact, the lack of clarity at this stage prolongs the uncertainty; but it need not be like this.
We need to make progress on a UK framework for subsidy control. Again, this is another framework agreement which needs to be put in place. At the moment, without such a framework, it could easily be said that the Government are making it up as they go along. What is needed is a dialogue, not the “take it or leave it” policy that this clause entails—a policy which may well end up in the courts and will certainly amplify the feeling that the union of the United Kingdom is not respected.
Yesterday’s letter from the Welsh Government’s Counsel General, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to, provides the UK Government with a route to a sensible solution. It recognises the ability in the EU to have variance in subsidies where there is an identified need. I must point out to noble Lords that many of us will remember that this was the case before we became members of the EU. I remember the arguments and debates on UK regional aid and regional assistance, and dividing the areas of the country up where aid could be given in greater amounts. That historical message was that there would be differences and distortions; of course, subsidies provide distortions, but they were provided for very good reasons. They were proposing to make a difference where the needs were greatest—where poverty and economic need were greatest—and so it was provided it in that way.
I can say, as somebody who had to operate within that framework as an economic development Minister, having to talk about these matters with Brussels simply to identify the boundaries, the flexibility, as the UK Government themselves say, was great indeed to manage that work. I believe we are seeing this clause put the cart before the horse—devising the policy before putting the legislation in place is what we are looking for, and that is what this amendment does.
All the devolved Governments have made it clear that they are prepared to work at pace with the UK Government to design a new subsidy regime. I would be grateful if the Minister in replying could tell us how the Government will respond to the offer from the devolved Governments. I also note that there must be unease on the Government’s side about this clause, since I have noticed that no other speaker, apart from the Minister, has come forward to support it.
Removing this clause from the Bill provides the opportunity for dialogue and the drawing up of a new subsidy regime for the UK. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, we already have a replacement in place temporarily until that is put back and the regime determined. I do hope that the Government will accept the offer from the devolved Governments as the right way forward and, as a gesture of good will, I would be grateful if they would therefore consider withdrawing this clause, supporting this amendment and, in so doing, strengthening the relationships between the various parts of our union.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of this amendment, elegantly explained by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord German, who amplified his points.
Yesterday, as already referred to, the Welsh Government’s Counsel General wrote to the Secretary of State at BEIS about Clause 44. That letter demonstrates clearly that the Welsh Government are seriously committed to trying to save the union of the United Kingdom and recognise the need to secure the internal market. Their offer to work intensively with the Government is clear and unequivocal.
The Welsh Government have consistently put forward imaginative and thoughtful proposals about how to move the constitutional debate forward. Indeed, in Brexit and Devolution in June 2017, the Welsh Government championed the idea of common frameworks, subsequently taken up by Whitehall. If I may quote, they said:
“From the outset of the debate about our collective future outside the EU, the Welsh Government has recognised a need to develop UK frameworks. It is clearly important that no new barriers to the effective free movement of goods and services within the UK are created as a result of EU withdrawal. The development of UK frameworks should be taken forward immediately on the basis of negotiation and agreement among the four UK administrations.”
This paper suggests a qualified majority voting system within a reformed intergovernmental system, where a decision endorsed by the UK Government plus one of the devolved Governments would be sufficient to break any logjam, thus addressing head on the issue of one nation wielding a veto. Last year, the Welsh Government’s comprehensive analysis in Reforming our Union championed shared governance, describing taking responsibility for codesigning legislation and policy where devolved and reserved competences intersect. It asserted that
“devolution is concerned with how the UK as a whole should be governed, with proper account taken of the interests of all of its parts. It is a joint project between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, based on a recognition of our mutual inter-dependence, which therefore requires a degree of shared governance.”
It foregrounded common frameworks, seeking a common approach, shared delivery systems and joint governance arrangements that should be developed on a collaborative and consensual basis. So, the intervention from the Counsel General is not an opportunistic response to this Bill but the continuation of a patient, crystal clear commitment to common frameworks at the heart of intergovernmental relations.
Over these three days of debates, Members across the House have recognised the importance of these frameworks. The Welsh Government and, I believe, the Scottish Government are not arguing to be left alone to design and implement their own rulebooks for government subsidies. They would be mad to do so. In a free-for-all between Governments of these islands to attract and hold on to investment, the UK Government would be bound to win, because they have much more significant financial resources and can set their own budget. Rather than arguing to have an equal role in designing a fair system all can work within, they are committing to do this on a timetable compatible with the one the Government have set themselves and to take no legislative action in this space until at least autumn 2021.
This is surely beyond reasonable doubt. If the efforts to reach agreement fail, the Government will have to introduce primary legislation to define the new subsidy regime, subject to the same constraints there are now, in order to achieve a coherent regime. We have repeatedly been told that this Bill does not diminish the powers of the devolved institutions, yet all we see and hear defies that. This clause explicitly and openly alters the devolution settlement by adding to the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act and the other devolution statutes. I therefore urge your Lordships to support its removal from the Bill.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
Clause 44 says it unequivocally: the UK Government, also parading as the English Government in this Bill, are specifically removing from the devolved Administrations their power to provide state aid, by inserting it as a specific reservation or excepted matter in each of the devolution Acts. When I said in earlier debates that the Government were using the Bill to roll back devolution, the Minister insisted that devolved Administrations were being given additional powers. We have already seen in these debates that the Government are using the Bill to sideline and undermine the common frameworks, which have been well established as the basic foundation for the future internal market. At the same time, the Bill removes any incentive for devolved Administrations to develop improved standards. Removing from the devolved Administrations the powers over state aid is fully in line with the thrust of the Bill, which is a barely disguised attempt to emasculate devolution.
I want to concentrate on how this Bill affects Wales, and Clause 44 refers to the Government of Wales Act 2006. In relation to this issue, that Act says:
“The First Minister may give financial assistance (whether by way of grant, loan or guarantee) to any person engaged in any activity which the First Minister considers will secure, or help to secure, the attainment of any objective in the Minister’s functions.”
In Field 4 of Schedule 5, it lists economic development as one of those functions.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend, with the very great experience and knowledge that she has on this issue. Given the fact that all four speakers so far in this group have been from Wales, I thought that, to avoid a degree of market distortion across the United Kingdom, there should be a little bit of northern balance. All I wish to do is to endorse the points that they have so ably made.
I put my name to this amendment, and if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, presses it and the House agrees, the Government have an opportunity now to bring back a more considered proposal as a result of some consultation. None of the speakers in this group has indicated that it is easy. If it was easy, agreement would have been reached at the outset. It is about being aware that the frameworks update highlighted that one of the four areas of dispute around where the competences lie with this power being repatriated is state aid. It is obvious that it was not a straightforward situation of saying that this had been uniquely a United Kingdom responsibility—so by definition, it is an issue.
It is also perfectly clear from all speakers that, without there being an understanding about the tests, de minimis levels, the administration and the type of ministerial direction that has existed up to now—without clarity as to how all that will go forward—any Minister in a devolved Administration will quite rightly be concerned about what impact this will have on the economies of the powers that they do have under the devolved competences.
I just wish to reinforce the point that the letter from Jeremy Miles to Alok Sharma, which I read, made a very fair offer. We share the concern that, without there being a further set of discussions to seek a degree of common ground on a framework agreement about how this will operate in the future—which there is time to do, because the Government have indicated that they are seeking to effectively have a window under the WTO approach, and there is consensus that that will be respected—this is potentially the way forward.
I hope that, although often it may not seem so, the Minister will see defeat as a bit of a silver lining in order for him to come back with a more considered approach, to take the Welsh offer and to allow us to consider the Government’s position from a degree of consensus and agreement. I support the noble Lords who have spoken on this group so far.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I agree with the case that has been made so well by the previous speakers. I put my name to the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and we would support him if he chooses to divide the House.
It is very simple: we agree that there has to be a UK-wide policy on state aid—or subsidy, if that is what it is to be called. The question that hangs around but never seems to get answered is: why has it not yet been articulated what this policy would be? It cannot be a question of timing. This suggests yet another shroud of mystery that surrounds this increasingly perplexing Bill.
It is certainly a novel way of developing policy for a Government to remove policy that is in force and that everybody knows and understands, increasing the uncertainty and making it more difficult for businesses. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said in his opening speech, the statutory instrument removing the current rules—taking us out of the current system that has been operating for a great number of years—has already been laid and will be debated next week, and we will not be able to stop it.
We therefore seem to be heading towards WTO rules, which are not well respected and do not seem to be applied properly, and there is no policing or organisational structure in which they can be dealt with properly. If that is where we are, we would at least have a period of stability during which we can sort out how we want to set up the rules that will apply to the internal market and how, if necessary, they are to be policed. This could all be part of the yet-to-be-announced deal with the EU—and it may be that is the case, because it is clear that this is a significant area of interest within the negotiations. But without any further detail on that, it is hard for us to speculate.
However, as others have said, the Welsh Government have come forward with an extraordinarily generous offer to expedite work on a common framework that relates to state aid and make a voluntary agreement to pause any legislation that would impinge on that in the intervening period. That is almost too good an offer, and I hope that the Minister has an adequate response to it.
Lord Callanan (Con) (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to another admirably brief debate. We are making good progress this afternoon.
As I outlined in Committee, Clause 44 reserves to the UK Parliament the exclusive ability to legislate for a UK-wide subsidy control regime. I greatly enjoyed the many contributions on this matter. I particularly liked the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I should take defeats as a silver lining, which prompts the obvious response that the Liberal Democrats have been defeated in the last three general elections and therefore have some experience of that.
Our debate in Committee on this clause served to highlight that, while some noble Lords might disagree on the approach taken, we all recognise the importance of ensuring that the UK continues to take a clear and consistent approach to subsidy control as we move away from EU state aid rules. The Government have always been clear in their view that the regulation of state aid—the EU’s approach to subsidy control—is a reserved matter. The Government are clear that they want to maximise the economic opportunities available to us when we are no longer bound by EU state aid rules. To achieve this economic ambition, it is important that, as now, we take a coherent approach to the system that governs how public authorities subsidise businesses across the United Kingdom. Reserving subsidy control is the best way in which to guarantee that a single, unified subsidy control regime could be legislated for in future.
In previous debates, there has sometimes been a misplaced conflation between the devolved spending powers and the systems that regulate the potentially harmful and distortive effects of this spending. To be clear, these are two distinct and separate responsibilities. Although the devolved Administrations can and should make spending decisions on subsidies, the wider rules in which they operate are, and should continue to be, consistent across the whole nation. In response to the intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I reiterate that the reservation does not change the devolved Administrations’ position in practice. They have never previously been able to set their own subsidy control regime, as this was covered by the EU state aid framework, but they will continue to make their own spending decisions on subsidies as they do currently.
The effect of the amendment would be to create unacceptable uncertainty regarding the extent to which subsidy control is a reserved or devolved competence. That would potentially give rise to inconsistency if there were different regimes to regulate subsidies across the UK. Ultimately, it could undermine fair and open competition across our internal market and inevitably discourage investment in the United Kingdom, bringing additional costs to supply chains and consumers.
The reservation will enable the UK to design a bespoke subsidy control regime that meets the needs of the UK economy. The Government have been clear that any future domestic regime will operate in a way that works best for all UK businesses, workers and consumers. In the coming months, as I said in Committee, we intend to publish a consultation on whether we should go further than our World Trade Organization and international commitments, including whether further legislation on this subject is necessary.
The Deputy Speaker (Barness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received one request to ask the Minister a short question for elucidation, from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Can the Minister reflect a bit more on what he has just said about treating this issue as a matter for common frameworks? It sounded as though he wanted a co-operative solution to this problem, one that would bring all the devolved Administrations into a common framework. However, at the end, he said that it is not appropriate—but why not? He has not given a satisfactory answer to that question. I remember challenging the noble Lord, Lord True, in an earlier debate at Report, on whether the Government had changed their policy on common frameworks and were no longer taking them seriously. I got a very vigorous shaking of the head from the noble Lord, Lord True. Would this not be a perfect example of how common frameworks were still being taken seriously by the Government, and would it not resolve a real problem that the Government have had?
The Minister talked about unacceptable uncertainty, but frankly, the unacceptable uncertainty about state aid has come from this Government. Mr Dominic Cummings had one view of state aid, as against the traditional Conservative view. That is where the uncertainty came from. Now that he has gone and now that he is out, thank goodness, we have an opportunity to create a sensible common policy. There is a need for balance, and it must be sensible. The best way is through a common framework in co-operation with the devolved Administrations.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not sure whether that was a question or a speech in the wrong place—but I take the noble Lord’s point. I think he is getting issues conflated. The common frameworks programme of course is a programme of work with diffuse levels of power and ultimately it is not clear where regulation lies. To resolve those matters on a cross-UK basis, there is no doubt in our mind where the proper operation of these powers is—state aid, or rather subsidy control, is a reserved matter for the UK Government. However, we have said that we want to work collaboratively. We want to work with the devolved Administrations and of course, as we have said, we will consult closely with them on any new policy that we develop and indeed on whether legislation is necessary. But, given my general support for the framework and the Government’s support for the framework programme, I do not believe that it is appropriate for this matter to be included in the framework programme.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I will be brief, as obviously it would be very unfair if the Welsh were totally to outnumber everyone else in the number of speeches delivered this evening. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to an interesting, though short, debate.
First, it is very encouraging that there is complete consensus on the need for a single subsidy regime for the internal market. There is no doubt about that. Secondly, there must be a consensus that at the moment this is not something that the UK Government have power over—otherwise this clause would be unnecessary. It is not a reserved matter and therefore under the devolution schemes it is a matter for all the devolved Governments. Thirdly, it is clear that there is no uncertainty. The Government are taking us out of the EU regime, assuming the instrument is passed, and we will go into the WTO regime—so that is the regime for the foreseeable future.
The real question is: are we going to go forward by diktat from Whitehall and Westminster or are we going to go forward by consensus? An obvious way of going forward is a common framework. I regret to say that I cannot agree with the Minister that a common framework is inappropriate. It is absolutely appropriate, because it will cater for the kind of divergence that will be allowed in the subsidy regimes. This is a matter of acute importance to people such as fishermen and those involved in agriculture. We need to know what level of divergence is permissible and negotiate that.
Finally, a decision has to be made on the role of the CMA. I moved amendments earlier this week in relation to the CMA simply because I imagine it will have to be the policeman of this regime. But what is it to be? Is it to be an adviser? Is it to have a central role? Or are things to be laid out in a common framework?
I therefore say that this clause ought to be removed. Get the policy right first. Try it by common framework and let us go forward on that basis. Therefore, I want to take the opinion of the House on the appropriate means of going forward—and the appropriate means is taking this clause out of this Bill.
Lord Judge
“(1) Section 11 ceases to have effect when Articles 5 to 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol cease to apply.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal of Part 5 (Northern Ireland Protocol) at Committee Stage.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal of Part 5 (Northern Ireland Protocol) at Committee Stage.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal of Part 5 (Northern Ireland Protocol) at Committee Stage.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 73. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 73
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
“Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiations: agreement of regulations
(1) Regulations to be made under any provision of this Act must be brought before the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiations for discussion and agreement before they may be laid before Parliament.(2) If the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiations do not agree to the regulations, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the reasons for the disagreement, and table a motion in both Houses of Parliament to debate the regulations and disagreement before they are approved.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to ensure the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiations, representing all four nations, have sight of the regulations made under this Bill.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to move Amendment 73. It is the same sort of amendment that I moved in Committee, when my noble friend Lord True was kind enough to say that it was a unionist type of amendment and, therefore, could be considered. Since then, the Government have accepted a number of situations covered by my amendment. It has therefore probably served its purpose and I do not propose to put it to a Division.
However, it illustrates what I am anxious to achieve: a degree of co-operation between the devolved Administrations and the Government of the United Kingdom, which will put the Bill in a much happier situation than it appeared to be in at first sight. A good deal has happened already. I just hope that they will go a little further.
I am under a certain restraint, because my computer has decided to restart without giving me any notice. I may not be able to speak at all when my turn comes at the end of this group but, if not, I end in that spirit.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord and we are grateful that he is more reliable that his technology. In Committee and with this amendment, he has suggested to—and sought to persuade—the Government that there is merit in them thinking again about further consultations on developing the frameworks to the extent that, where they can reach their limit, there would then be the legislative requirement within this Bill.
I will speak to Amendment 75, in my noble friend Lord Fox’s name, which tries to put forward a structure for these discussions and, in effect, to codify it within this legislation—providing that framework, as it were, for the talks that should happen. In so doing, I will display what some colleagues in the House consider my usual characteristic of being rather pernickety—to which I say mea culpa. In our amendment, we reference the “Joint Ministerial Council”; it should refer to the Joint Ministerial Committee, so I admit that that was an error in the drafting.
When we started Committee, we had heard reflections at Second Reading and the concerns of the devolved Administrations about this Bill. At this stage, there is no need to rehearse the concerns; we have done so in Committee and on Report. Ministers—the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, in particular—have been very willing to meet with us and discuss this. We have not always been in agreement; nevertheless, personally speaking, I am grateful for the opportunities to discuss some of these issues with the Ministers.
Ultimately, the House has made the decision that we have not been persuaded by many of the Government’s arguments. Even today, key elements of the legislation have been excised, such as those on spending and subsidy powers. From the government Benches, the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, indicated that it was not appropriate for the OIM to be in the CMA. In a whole series of areas, this House has taken a view that we are concerned about how the Bill had been drafted.
Fundamentally, one of the themes has been a genuine ongoing concern, not fully addressed by government amendments on consultation, that the powers which the Government are taking under this legislation will damage, rather than strengthen, devolution. In particular, they will put at risk one of the areas where we have seen consensus not only within the parties in this House but within the nations and the UK Government: namely, that the frameworks process has been positive, notwithstanding a pause and a disagreement. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord True, which this House passed with a large majority, the reference that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, indicated with his amendments and our amendment show that we also wish for that process to see its natural conclusion.
At this stage, we believe there is merit in seeking support for a further set of discussions at a plenary session of the Joint Ministerial Committee, which can agree the principles of the market access and an intergovernmental relationship that will put this on a sound footing for many years to come. That is why we are asking the House to consider a proposal that we believe will allow there to be agreement and consensus, but not a veto.
This is the final thing that I will say. We accept that the operation of the UK market is a shared UK aspect, but it will be a complex set of discussions and potentially contentious. That is why in this amendment we have sought a mechanism to prevent a veto but to allow consensus to be brought about. I know that my noble friends Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Fox will cover the details. Personally, having gone through all the stages of the Bill, I will say that while we recognise Ministers’ willingness to be open, as I have indicated, there is still a case to be made for one further opportunity to seek consensus.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern’s amendment out of admiration for him and for the way in which he has sought positively to contribute to our debates on the Bill, both in Committee and on Report. All his contributions have been informed by his passionate unionism. He is a truly remarkable man. He was a most revered Lord Chancellor and, of course, had he lived in Edinburgh in the Age of Enlightenment he would have been one of the adornments of that age. We are extremely fortunate to have him as a Member of your Lordships’ House.
I say to my noble friend Lord True that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has indicated that he does not wish to push his amendment to a Division because he is appreciative of the recognition of the importance of the union displayed by my noble friends Lord True and Lord Callanan, and indeed all those who have spoken from the Front Bench. However, and I say this on my own account, while I completely understand why my noble and learned friend does not want to divide on this amendment, and I admire him greatly for all that he has done, I still believe that the union is in peril, and it is terribly important that my noble friends on the Front Bench take most carefully into account all that has been said today on the subject of the union. All the amendments have been informed by a great love for the union, a recognition that it is at risk and a passionate, consuming desire to ensure that the most successful union in European history does not come to grief.
If, when he comes to wind up, my noble friend Lord True could emphasise his own devotion to the union, that would be a reward to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay for his persistence, and a recognition from your Lordships’ House of the esteem in which we hold him.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow Lord Cormack, who has neatly demonstrated in this last group on Report how much this has been a cross-party, cross-House effort. There may be many things that we disagree on, but what has been broadly agreed is that the Bill is not currently fit for purpose. We have seen that again and again, with very strong votes for the amendments put forward by your Lordships’ House from a wide range of directions. It is fitting that, in opening this group, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, demonstrated the House’s persistence in the face of technological challenges, which has been a great credit to the House right through this debate and, indeed, through the entire Covid-19 pandemic.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 75, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, to which I have attached my name, as have the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Wigley. I shall not go through it in detail; it is a very detailed amendment, but that reflects of the nature of this debate and the issue of trust. Your Lordships’ House has heard again and again, including in reports from its respected committees, of great concern about details, plans and policies not being put in the Bill. This is one more amendment that seeks to tackle that. Looking at the overview of this, your Lordships’ House has, perhaps slightly ironically, been standing very firm as a defender of devolution and democracy. We will almost certainly return to this again and I urge all Members of this House to stand up for these issues, which are crucial for the future of the United Kingdom, whatever shape that might take.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this group of amendments and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who has made a massive contribution to our work on the Bill. As I have stated in previous debates, the House would be well advised to listen to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Time after time, he has alerted the House to the need to find an acceptable compromise on these matters. In particular, Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to which I have added my name, serves that purpose. The amendment addresses the need to have a coherent framework for the work of the Joint Ministerial Committee and to provide a mechanism for when there may be disagreements. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, stated that this amendment provides for any opportunity to achieve a consensus where that is possible—an excellent aspiration.
Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, stressed tonight, as he has before, the need to find ways of co-operating. As I am sure he would be glad to hear, I add that my main objective in seeking greater powers for Wales is not primarily to demolish the union, but to change it into something that better serves the interests of our respective countries. That means giving greater power and being prepared to be flexible, something that has not been entirely apparent in the Government’s attitude to the Bill.
There clearly has to be some mechanism for dealing with situations where there is a disagreement among our four nations. It should have been the duty of the Government to find an acceptable solution, but they have failed to do so. I therefore believe that we should give MPs in the other place an opportunity to address this matter again by writing an amendment along these lines into the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Cormack said about our noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
I have not spoken in general terms about the union. Suffice it to say that, as a Scot by birth with a Scottish father, who made her maiden speech next door on the Scotland Bill, I care passionately about this area. I lend my support to the terms of the amendment as set out by my noble and learned friend. I urge my noble friend Lord True to show the same spirit as our noble friend Lord Callanan when he accepted many of the areas, identified by the Law Society of Scotland in earlier parts of the Bill, on which we felt that the Government should consult. I am just disappointed that those fell to the terms of consent being sought. I am not sure that is appropriate in all those circumstances.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the Scottish Parliament withheld its consent to this legislation. It behoves the Government to move as far as possible and to consult. I am mindful of the old BT advert: it is good to talk. By talking and consulting, many misunderstandings are removed. It also behoves the Government to ensure that the common frameworks are allowed to reach their natural conclusion in the areas that are already well advanced. I wish my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and his amendment the best, and hope that our noble friend Lord True might be magnanimous and come forward with something similar at the next stage.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking in support of Amendment 75, and I recognise the constructive intentions behind Amendments 73 and 76. I want to be clear that I have not been persuaded in any way of the case for this Bill. It is wrong in almost every respect, and that is why it has been substantially amended: I think the House takes a similar view. Of course, I have supported amendments that mitigate its worst effects, but I view with growing despair the failure of the Government to grasp just how negative and dangerous is the thrust of this Bill.
The Bill is clearly driven by an ideological and deluded belief that the UK Government can negotiate trade deals more far-reaching and radical than have been achieved within the EU and that, in doing so, they do not wish to allow the existing devolution arrangements to account for any friction in the process. Of course, however, Part 5 of the Bill destroys the negotiating capacity of the Government, who have had no experience of negotiating trade deals in more than 40 years, by advertising in advance their preparedness to set aside unilaterally any agreements that they might sign. The trouble is that the Government seem completely oblivious to the friction that will result from unilaterally overriding decision-making under the devolution settlements.
It has been argued repeatedly that decisions involving the devolved Administrations should be based on seeking agreement. The principles behind the common frameworks have been met with wide support and approval, and I welcome their inclusion in Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. However, there is still a serious lacuna in the process for reaching agreements across the four nations, and Amendment 75 addresses this. The amendment also seeks to utilise the joint ministerial committee, which, in practice, has not been used enough, but which could be an effective means of producing a dispute-resolution process.
The problem at the moment is that the default position leaves it to UK Ministers—who, of course, are also English Ministers—to have the final say. It is not desirable for any one of the four nations to have a veto on achieving agreement. We are quite clear about that. That is why a premium should be placed on seeking agreement wherever possible. Where it is not possible, however, there needs to be a mechanism that is seen to be fair and collaborative and not one-sided. That might involve qualified majority voting, which I have advocated on a number of occasions. However, this amendment proposes not a solution but a mechanism for finding one. My noble friend Lord Purvis, in previous contributions, alluded to the Australian example where the mechanism was unanimously agreed by all the state premiers, but decisions relied on qualified majority voting.
This Bill will do immense damage to the union and to what is left of Britain’s good standing in the world, which this Government seem determined to destroy. Amending it is only damage limitation, but Amendment 75 would go a long way to help. I support it: it is a mechanism by which we can find solutions to disagreements among our four nations that do not allow for veto but do seek consent and will have the support of all the component parts of the union, apart from those who have no desire to maintain it. Many of us want this union to survive and to be effective: this kind of amendment is a way to try to ensure that.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern made some powerful arguments on this subject in Committee. As he said, the UK internal market is not a fixed law, like the law of the Medes and Persians. He made a great contribution, together with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in bringing the common frameworks programme into being in 2017.
I believe that the nationalist-led Administrations in Scotland and Wales, by arguing that powers that have been held by the European Commission in maintaining common frameworks at a European level should not return to Westminster but should be returned to the devolved authorities, are acting against the economic interests of their stakeholders. They might want to increase the powers of the institutions of which they are members, but they do not give enough consideration to the damage to the UK internal market that their power grab threatens to cause.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who has contributed so much to the different stages of this Bill. Once again, it has also been a great pleasure to support my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern as he tries to prompt the Government to outline a process of devolved consultation on any major disputes in the creation of regulations or statutory instruments that future Administrations will consider adequate to the task under this Bill.
Almost all the issues discussed today fall very much into the area that recalls the off-the-cuff remark that slipped from the lips of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, which he has since spent some time trying to explain in any way that fits with government policies going forward. Speaking as a Scotsman, however, I believe that the First Minister of Scotland should take some comfort from what the Prime Minister said and the fact that as devolution has progressed she has been able to move many Scots institutions and practices—never as far as she might like, but always in the direction that she would like, towards an independent nation. The situation in Wales has not been the same; it has been much healthier. Naturally, this is the approach that we can expect the First Minister to use with any future changes, and it presumably explains the lack of consent from that area.
Like my noble friend Lord Cormack, today I wish to support a Government who aim to maintain a United Kingdom. The Government are looking for support and settlements in structures and frameworks that can support devolution within, and as part of, the United Kingdom. In supporting my noble and learned friend, we are all seeking a truly robust mechanism that has the possibility of overcoming disagreements at the highest level. The debates in your Lordships House today are more and more an illustration of the levels of disagreement that will have to be solved.
In Committee, my noble friend the Minister in his reply gave some idea and suggestions of the criteria that the Government have in mind for resolving disputes at a more mundane level. Some of it sounded quite good, as far as it went. Disputes such as those he outlined are frequently liable to comprise very technical elements, and the Government would like to resolve these at a departmental level, or, as they say, at as low a level as possible—whatever that is.
In Committee, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay insisted that his suggestion for working these things out through the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations was exactly what is needed. However, he is hoping that the amendments the Government have now introduced will move it some way in that direction.
In his response in Committee, my noble friend the Minister enticed us—and it was repeated at a briefing I received today—with the thought that there is in train a revision of the workings of the Joint Ministerial Committee, where already
“The proposal for reforming the formal process for avoiding and resolving intergovernmental disputes was jointly drafted”.—[Official Report, 2/11/20; cols. 529-30]
Having said that, the Minister was then asked by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed—who has also prompted us today—whether we would be given some indication of what this reform contained, as it is of consequence to our consideration of disputes under this Bill. But the Minister would not be drawn, and we are being asked to consider this Bill without this knowledge and without the proper mechanism. It sounds as if the Government are going to rely on some political bargaining somewhere along the line.
I have another question of clarification for my noble friend the Minister. Will the Competition and Markets Authority—which is above political interference —and its office of the internal market task force be given the support they need to face disputes in a court of law? That appears to be where this is all heading.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has again been a high-quality debate. It is an honour to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, who spoke with great wisdom. In offering Her Majesty’s Government support, that support was heavily nuanced with some important questions, which I look forward to hearing the Minister answer.
In the previous debate, on Amendment 69, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, set the question of whether it was diktat versus consensus. It is the same with group. I am pleased to speak in a group which has heard the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and I share in the admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for his contribution. He painted a rather half-full picture of where we have got to in the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was a little more half-empty. I am afraid that I side with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. Those concerns were further illustrated by my noble friend Lord Bruce, who set out the flaws and problems that remain with the Bill.
I am speaking to Amendment 75, in my name, and I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Overall, my noble friends have been very clear and helpful in setting out the purpose of this amendment. It is essentially to help drive a process whereby the consensus that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, talked about in the last group can be delivered—an explicit process.
Why do we need an explicit process? One thing that has come through the Bill, and through amendments brought by both Ministers, is an acknowledgement of the need for consultation. However, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who was here just a few minutes ago and I am afraid is not here now, one Minister’s consultation is not necessarily one recipient’s feeling consulted. There is a process that is called consultation, whereby people are informed marginally before the general public, and then there is genuine consultation. All Governments practice both these forms of consultation.
Amendment 75 sets out a process whereby consensus is driven, rather than relying on the Minister or the Government of the day, whether this one or future ones, to deliver that consensus around the Joint Ministerial Committee. That process has been set out, as I said, by my colleagues. The purpose is, in a sense, to bookend the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. After Part 5 discussions, we started these discussions with the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, which pushed the common frameworks to the forefront of how the future internal market should be organised. Amendment 75 seeks to put in place a process by which this can happen and, as my noble friend set out, avoids the pitfall of a veto.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said that he had concerns about the union. I have concerns about the union. It is only by delivering a truly consensual process that is seen to be transparent and set out, rather than optional, for people, that that danger can start to be averted. That is why I will be pressing Amendment 75 to a vote—unless, of course, there is a damascene conversion on the Benches opposite.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like others, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, on his campaign. The Government have listened to it and that has resulted in a number of good and important changes to the Bill. He exerts great influence on our work, and long may it continue.
I admire the thinking that has gone into Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and his supporters. It proposes a response to another of the gaps that we keep encountering in the Bill—the need to reform the JMC system and the need for a mechanism for getting agreement, with particular reference, in this case, to the market access principles, about which we have different views. This may not be the time to bring this particular proposal in, but it shows us the way forward and I hope that that will influence the Government’s thinking in other ways and in other parts of our political consciousness.
Amendment 76, in my name, was intended as a fallback, in case our plans for ensuring that the common frameworks programme was made the centrepiece of the process for agreeing the rules required to underpin the UK internal market fell by the wayside. However, this House has strongly supported the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the common frameworks, and we hope that, in time, we can persuade the Government that they can and should do likewise.
I am less sure that we have persuaded the Government about the damage they will do to the devolution settlement if they do not change tack on how state aid is to be organised and their current top-down plans for the shared prosperity fund. I urge them to reflect on the opportunity they have been given by the votes today, but I do not think Amendment 76 will actually take the trick that it was intended to in this case, so I shall not be pressing it to a vote.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I must say that any computer that tries to silence my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern should be carried to the top of the Old Man of Hoy and dropped from a very great height, hopefully with destructive power—unless any environmentalist thinks that that is a serious suggestion; it is a figure of speech. Those who are not familiar with the Old Man of Hoy should understand that it is an extremely high stack in a very beautiful part of the country. It is very hard to climb, too; I have never attempted it—you only have to look at me to see that.
These amendments have difficulties because they would all introduce, in our judgment, a serious risk of the internal market system not being in place at the end of the transition period. That is a serious consideration in our contention. I agree with my noble friend Lord Trenchard, with his great experience of business—indeed, of business with Japan—that a secure, stable and functioning market is part of the bedrock of our union. It is a unionist principle that we should have a common functioning market; I think that that is assented to by almost all of those who have spoken in our debates. Of course, I repeat my personal commitment and this Government’s commitment to the union. My party has always been a unionist party, and we remain as such.
Coming back to the amendments, in our judgment, a considerable delay would undermine business certainty and consumer confidence at a time when it is vital that the economy is able to bounce back in the Covid recovery phrase, about which my right honourable friend the Chancellor spoke so eloquently earlier today.
Amendment 73, as others have said, absolutely underscores the honourable intent of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. We have had a meeting of minds on that. I am grateful for his kind words; I can certainly assure him that he has been a great influence in securing constructive change, as have other noble Lords in the course of these debates. I can affirm that the union will remain at the heart of the Government’s objectives. I am grateful for his withdrawing the amendment with the comments and, indeed, warnings that he set around that withdrawal because of the clear limitations—I will come on to these—of linking any proposal to the Joint Ministerial Committee.
For that reason, I will move on to Amendment 75, which specifies a process of debate and consent that must be achieved with the devolved Administrations through the joint ministerial council before the market access principles can take effect. This process would add an unacceptable delay to the implementation of the market access principles when the very reason for the Bill that we are here to discuss is to provide certainty to businesses from 1 January 2021, when the European structure falls away. The objective to provide certainty as powers flow back from the European Union is not new or rushed; indeed, efforts have been made to discuss this over a lengthy period. I must remind your Lordships that, sadly, the Scottish Government walked away from the internal market project in spring 2019. However, there has been continuing, positive and helpful engagement at official, and indeed ministerial, level since then. I do not share the pessimism, suspicion or doubt of a number of your Lordships that our union cannot prosper with this internal market after January 2021.
There is a valid question on how governance and disputes relating to the internal market should be dealt with through intergovernmental machinery; my noble friend the Duke of Montrose alluded to our earlier discussions on this. As I updated your Lordships earlier in these discussions, the Government are looking with the devolved Administrations at reforms to the Joint Ministerial Committee structure. The intent is to move on through the joint intergovernmental relations review.
This review will deliver the overarching architecture to support the delivery of improved and effective engagement with the devolved Administrations at all levels of government—as my noble friend the Duke of Montrose alluded to—from officials upwards and, if necessary, the consideration of cross-cutting issues above departmental level. I repeat what I said earlier: this is not complete, but work is progressing positively in this respect. I think that all the various Administrations would accept that. We welcome further discussions with the DAs on finalising the format of these engagement structures, including to complement those relating to the internal market, and I look forward to reporting back to this House on our finalised governance structures when we have concluded the review, which, as I have said, we aim to do by the end of the year.
In addition, as set out in my letter to colleagues prior to Report, the Government propose that a meeting be held in the new year with devolved counterparts once the Bill becomes law to agree a programme of official and ministerial-level engagement on the—my brief says “operationalisation”; can you imagine such a thing?—implementation and operation of the Bill. This includes determining the practical arrangements to deliver our commitment to meet Ministers in the devolved Administrations annually, as undertaken on this Bill, to review the operation of the UK internal market as supported by Parts 1 to 4 of the Bill, including new developments that might require the use of such delegated powers. This annual meeting will be just one of the regular intergovernmental meetings between BEIS Ministers and officials on other portfolio matters, such as the Covid-19 response.
On Amendment 76, I do not mean to disparage the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Purvis of Tweed; indeed, I thank them for their openness and engagement in the process so far. I was going on to thank the Labour Party for its engagement, and I never want to give unintended offence to anyone in your Lordships’ House.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for what he said; I am grateful for the engagement and discussions that we have had on this and the common frameworks programme. His amendment seeks to create a link between the common frameworks programme and the market access principles. While it is true that the internal market provisions and common frameworks programme are complementary, as we have tried to persuade your Lordships—that is how the Government see it—it is not appropriate to create a link with the common frameworks programme in that specific way in this amendment. I will not go on at length because the noble Lord has said that he does not intend to press it, but I underline that I appreciate the strength of feeling in the House on common frameworks, which I and other Ministers continue to reflect on. In saying that, I will not undertake to come back to this House on Third Reading, so if any noble Lords wish to test the opinion of the House on this issue, it would have to be at this point.
I assure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to the common frameworks programme. The processes established in it will work with future intergovernmental relations machinery. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, pointed out, with the inclusion of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—although the Government did not and do not accept it—your Lordships have ensured that common frameworks will be discussed in another place; no doubt we will have opportunities to consider it further. I think that was the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was withdrawing his amendment. I appreciate that and offer him those words of assurance.
The process proposed in his amendment and Amendment 75 undermines the purpose of the market access principles, which are designed to provide underpinning certainty that the UK internal market will continue to function in all circumstances. These amendments would create uncertainty about whether and when the market access principles would apply. Leaving businesses to manage this uncertainty and friction is not acceptable. Indeed, it undermines the core purpose of the Bill of providing businesses with certainty that they can continue to trade across the UK at the end of the transition period. For these reasons, the Government cannot support these amendments and I hope the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister. I now call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to be able to speak to noble Lords, although I cannot now see them. I appreciate what has been said. I do not think it necessarily involves uncertainty about the principles, as my noble friend Lord True suggested. I think it could be quite clear that the principles apply, except so far as they are modified by the common frameworks agreements. That does not in any way make them uncertain. If it were needed, some kind of notice that a common frameworks decision was to become part of the internal market rule would possibly deal with that if it had to be dealt with, but it is perfectly reasonable to think that the common frameworks could work as part of the arrangements in such a way that the results of agreements in the common frameworks are put into effect in the UK internal market rule.
I agree that the internal market is fundamental to the union of the United Kingdom. As has been said, it was the rule right from the first day of the union. I entreat the Government to think carefully about how to engage the common frameworks policy in the rule of the common market in a way that is acceptable and does no harm. I cannot see that it does any harm. It makes it all the more constructive. The internal market rule is a living instrument, which should accommodate degrees of innovation that might well bring forward the whole market in due course. I shall not press my amendment, as I indicated, because I think the Government have already done what I wanted in most of the situations where it would be suitable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(3A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not appoint a day for the commencement of Part 1, 2, 3 or 4 until the following requirements are met—(a) the requirement in subsection (3B), and(b) the requirement in subsection (3C) or the requirement in subsection (3D).(3B) The requirement in this subsection is that the Prime Minister must convene a plenary session of the Joint Ministerial Council in order to seek agreement of the market access principles set out in section 1(2).(3C) If an agreement on the market access principles is reached at the conclusion of the Joint Ministerial Council session, the requirement in this subsection is that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a memorandum of understanding which sets out—(a) details of the agreed principles; and(b) proposals for the establishment of an agreed dispute resolution mechanism relating to the internal market in the United Kingdom for any disputes among the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers, and a Northern Ireland department.(3D) If unanimous agreement is not reached at the conclusion of the Joint Ministerial Council session, the requirement in this subsection is that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining—(a) why unanimous agreement could not be reached; and(b) proposals for the operation of the internal market in the United Kingdom in light of the fact that an agreement under subsection (3B) was not reached unanimously.”
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it has been very helpful to hear the Minister. His description of the intergovernmental discussions is very important and we wish the Government good speed on that. If the Minister or his colleagues can keep us updated on the progress of those very important discussions, we would be grateful.
On Amendment 75, the Minister made great play about the timetable, but it should be noted that the Bill does not affect any existing legislation on day one. Furthermore, the devolved authorities have agreed to a standstill arrangement. The Minister is creating a false timetable pressure on your Lordships. I do not believe that your Lordships need to be constrained on time for this.
In conclusion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, spoke about the internal market as a living, breathing, changing process. To run that, there needs to be a structure with the JMC and the devolved authorities. Amendment 75 would set in place one way of doing that and I am sure we would be very happy to discuss other ways of doing that with the Government if they have ideas. To put that pressure on, I would like to test the will of the House.
Lord Judge
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal of Part 5 (Northern Ireland Protocol) at Committee Stage.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
That concludes the Bill. We will now go straight on to the next session, so I ask the Ministers to swap.
Sport Sector: Financial Support
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating last week’s Statement. Normally, it is undesirable to have such a gap between the debates in both Houses, but, in this case, it allows us to consider recent developments.
Labour welcomes the additional financial support for the sport sector, and I repeat the thanks expressed by my colleague, Alison McGovern, for the hard-working Treasury and DCMS, who have had to deal with complex financial returns at speed. It is regrettable, and I do not like to sound curmudgeonly here, but Ministers chose that process at such a late stage. However, these funds will nevertheless provide a lifeline for the range of sports that receive them, and for that reason they are very welcome.
Last week, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State reiterated his desire for this money to be going out in weeks and certainly for some of it to be disbursed before Christmas. Is the noble Baroness able to provide any updates on the planned timescales, particularly in the light of today’s wider economic announcements? Can she express in percentage terms what amount she expects to arrive at with organisations before year end? I very much hope that the department has learned lessons from its experience with the Culture Recovery Fund, which, as we all know, took some time to start distributing moneys.
In response to a question on equal access for funding by women’s sports, Mr Huddleston said that there would be an appropriate proportion for women’s sport. What, in the Minister’s view, is an appropriate amount? Again, I would appreciate a percentage. I know, from previous comments, that the Minister shares my view that we must not allow the pandemic to reverse the excellent progress and good work in women’s sports over recent years, but that will be possible only with appropriate financial help and support.
The noble Baroness will not be surprised if I ask for an update on the Government’s planned fan-led review of football governance. We have been told that preparations are in progress without any dates being named. Ministers continue to point out that it was a manifesto commitment of theirs. Given this, we would expect there to be some more urgency.
I wish to probe a little on Monday’s announcement that a limited number of fans will be allowed to return to sports stadia once the national lockdown is lifted and the tier system resumes. Allowing up to 4,000 fans to attend outdoor sporting events and up to 1,000 spectators at indoor events is a welcome step forward after an unprecedented period of professional sport being played behind closed doors. Noble Lords will know that these numbers are the absolute cap, with a percentage system in place for clubs with lower-capacity stadia. Can the Minister provide the evidence base behind the 4,000-person attendance limit?
Manchester United’s Old Trafford can ordinarily host well over 70,000 fans. Even the old wooden stands at Goodison Park will fail to emit their customary creak with just 4,000 fans present. Twickenham Stadium has a capacity of 80,000. While it is not desirable to have these grounds full at this time, on what basis was it determined that they were unable to safely host a higher number? Premier League clubs have spent large sums preparing their grounds to accommodate socially distanced fans. Similar steps have been taken by rugby clubs and others in anticipation of reopening their doors. While they will be excited to welcome even a small number of fans back home, doing so is likely to result in financial losses, which will become unsustainable if the cap is not revisited.
Therefore, when are we likely to see a detailed road map for increasing sporting capacities? Will DCMS commission new test events to inform such a road map? Has any consideration been given to previous test events and the data they have provided? I draw attention to the case of Brighton & Hove Albion. There was approval in principle for crowds of around 8,000; that would move individual fixtures from loss to profit. Even for lower league clubs, which desperately need that additional income, the current offer is unlikely to satisfy demand from season-ticket holders who have paid up front. I am told that AFC Wimbledon, which has just completed its historic return to a new stadium at Plough Lane, had over 3,000 season-ticket holders last year and are expecting that number to climb. If the area remains in tier 2, it means that the club will admit only those who have already paid, rather than making new money.
I stress that we do not want to rush this. We need to be confident that stadia of all ages and sizes can cope with the return of fans and that there are appropriate protocols in place, not only around grounds but on transport networks as well. However, sports clubs at all levels need to see progress, not just one-off announcements. This is true in relation to support from government and clubs’ ability to raise their own funds. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Botham, for example, will be hoping that Lord’s is able to welcome a higher number of spectators when cricket returns next summer—otherwise he, like the rest of us, will be obliged to watch remotely and that cannot be right.
I want to close with one final question regarding the Prime Minister’s recent announcement. We know from the Independent SAGE group that the ability for families to mix at Christmas may require new restrictions in January and beyond. If that comes to fruition, is it the Government’s intention that attendance at sporting events would become an exception to restrictions or do we face the prospect of clubs opening their doors in December, only to see them being slammed shut in the new year?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it a good thing that we have this debate, even if it is nearly a week late. The old adage that a week is a long time in politics must be ringing very loudly in the Minister’s ears at the moment, because we have had many announcements that add to this Statement. The biggest, shall we say, elephant in the room— or dog that is not barking—is what is happening with arrangements for the upper tiers of professional football. If the Minister knows anything, now would be a good time to tell us. I would understand if no arrangement has been reached, but if anything can be told about that it would help us.
To return to what is said in the Statement, we need a little more flesh on the bone. For instance, I live in the village of Lambourn in the “Valley of the Racehorse”. There, the National Trainers Federation has been asking how the money going to the racing establishment is going to trickle down to its members. Without people who look after the horses, you do not have any event. It is not that straightforward and there are details to go through.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has already had a good go on the fact that getting some fans into the grounds will help a few clubs. But one of my noble friends has pointed out to me that certain lower league clubs are getting gates of 18,000—I think Portsmouth does, if my noble friend the Chief Whip has told me right. He is nodding at me, so I am fairly safe there. If that is the case, how will this potential lifeline and way out compensate them? The reform of football has been made more pressing by Covid. We should be looking at the fact that the current model is virtually unsustainable. I do not think that we should forget that at any time.
On rugby union, I heard a question today that I want to ask the Minister. What do you do about the money for the Olympic sport of sevens, which was cut due to this? I have heard that an arrangement is coming to help with that, which is good news, but rugby union may well be the last sport to play again. Let us face it, old prop forwards like me know that we form our own special non-socially distanced, germ-spreading little units around the place when we play the game. When do the Government expect there to be sufficient immunisation to allow us to come back? Intelligent things have been done about trying to get a different version of the game played. Rugby union may be the best example, but all sports have these questions. Will the Government have some form of timescale to allow the fans in and the playing of the game in all circumstances, especially at community level?
We may have gone a little wider than the Statement in this debate but a lot has happened. It would help if we could find out now exactly what the Government are thinking.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their questions and their welcome to this funding. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in thanking the civil servants in both DCMS and the Treasury for their incredible work on this package.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, started by asking about timings for the disbursement of these funds. This package is aimed at those clubs really facing an existential threat, particularly as a result of the recent lockdown and the inability to allow fans back and the income that comes with that. We are keen on and committed to getting the first tranche of funding out by year end. More detail will be published about that shortly. There will also be an independent board overseeing the disbursement of the funds.
The noble Lord also asked about funding for the women’s game. I must confess that I heard my honourable friend the Minister for Sport be slightly more vehement about the importance of those clubs receiving funding from the Government treating women and women’s sport exactly the same as men’s. The criteria for this fund are identical for women’s sport and men’s sport.
I fear that I will disappoint the noble Lord regarding a further update on the fan-led review. As he noted, it is a manifesto commitment and we are committed to doing it. Progress is being made but no firm date has yet been settled on.
Both noble Lords talked about the importance of returning fans to stadia. We are all enormously keen to get fans back and delighted by the recent decision that in tiers 1 and 2, in particular, there will be capacity for up to—in tier 1—4,000 fans in the open air. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, noted himself in a later comment, the decisions about the number of fans in a stadium are based not purely on the capacity of the stadium but also on the design, entrances, exits and travelling arrangements. We have done a number of pilots which have helped inform our thinking. We will watch and learn from the opening-up that is shortly to be with us, and then we will build on that. But we really do feel optimistic about the prospects for this as we go into the new year, and particularly beyond Easter.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked specifically about rugby union and rightly pointed out the risks in the scrum—to the long list of which a new risk has now been added for those brave enough to go into the scrum. We are obviously aware that this is a close-contact sport and will have particular challenges. We aim to give more detail on how we hope to address the points that the noble Lord rightly raised around vaccination in particular. We are working and hope to be able to publish a not-later-than date. As I mentioned, the Health Secretary has been very optimistic about seeing a significant change in conditions around Easter. We all look forward to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, also asked about trainers. Obviously, with the £40 million going to racecourses and the ability for racing to take place, there will be a trickle-down benefit to trainers from the prize money from those events.
I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was not at his most generous when he talked about the progress and implied that there would be a stop-start pattern. I think that we have come a really long way. There is light at the end of the tunnel for both grass-roots and professional sport. We have a lot of hope, based on the vaccine results announced recently and on the level of testing that we are now achieving. We are very grateful to the Sports Technology and Innovation Group for its advice on how we can bring fans back as quickly as possible.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome this Statement as an important rescue package, for that is exactly what it is. I note that £250 million of the £300 million is in the form of loans. When can we expect the terms of the loans and details of the repayment holidays to be finalised, rather than the final deals themselves? I hope that the Minister will commit to a comprehensive review of all Covid-related support for sport by the end of March, when this package ends, because long into 2021 the impact of Covid-19 will still be delivering a hammer-blow to the decimated income statements of both winter and summer sports across the United Kingdom.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. We will publish the application process and wider conditions for loans in the winter survival package in the next few weeks, but the principle behind the loans is that they should be affordable in terms of both the interest rate and the repayment period. In relation to a review of sport, I am not aware of a formal review of the sort that my noble friend suggests, but I stress that the team in DCMS is working extremely closely with all sports to get as thorough and comprehensive as possible an understanding of the situation and how we can relaunch stronger in the new year.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests. What work have Her Majesty’s Government undertaken to explore an equivalent of the hospitality sector’s Eat Out to Help Out scheme for the sport and fitness sector and connecting it to a scheme to drive activity levels that could support the Prime Minister’s obesity strategy?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness raises the interesting idea of “Work Out to Help Out”, or whatever it would be called. Obviously there are different ways of helping different sectors. We have tried to focus on a number of direct funding packages. Obviously there is the £300 million winter survival package; £200 million was announced earlier in the year for grass-roots sport; and there is £100 million for gyms and leisure centres, which I am sure the noble Baroness welcomes.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for the metaphor that I am opening the bowling on behalf of cricket. I particularly want to say that as I see that the noble Lord, Lord Botham, is bowling at the other end—hopefully with me rather than at me.
The Statement indicates that cricket has the opportunity to make an application. Can the Minister confirm that there will be sufficient availability within the £300 million for county cricket, which is in need of money, if it gets its application together? I would welcome some elucidation from her as to why county cricket has not so far been included. I understand why the ECB is not because it is rather analogous to the football situation, where you have the Premier League and the lower clubs, and the ECB has had a huge amount of television money from Sky.
Is county cricket not included because it has not actually made an application yet, or is it to pressurise the ECB to give more of the TV money to the counties rather than them getting it out of the £300 million? If neither of those is true, can the Minister please explain what the counties need to do to receive the necessary payments from the fund?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I was wondering which bowler I would rather face if I were batting at this hypothetical wicket—but, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, we probably know which one it is. In answer to his question, the reason that funding has not been made available to country cricket is that we were reassured by the ECB that it had the means to support all the counties over the winter. If the restrictions continue beyond 1 April, we will consider whether some form of additional support is needed.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register. On behalf of the entire rugby league family, I thank my noble friend and the Government for the additional funding in the package of £12 million for rugby league, coming on top of the £16 million announced in May, all of which is vital support for clubs that are at the very heart of their communities. May I also underline the absolute necessity of ensuring a return to paying spectators for the start of the 2021 rugby league season—a season which, as my noble friend will know, concludes with the rugby league World Cup? It promises to be the biggest and most ambitious ever, and I am pleased to say that there is already an unprecedented demand for tickets.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Well, I am delighted to hear from my noble friend about the demand for tickets for the rugby World Cup. I stress that we appreciate and understand the importance of rugby league to communities around the country and the very positive benefit it brings to so many people’s lives. One of my most memorable visits, in the days when we were allowed such visits, was to watch the Castleford Tigers women’s team training. It was very cold but it was very inspiring. To address my noble friend’s question more directly, obviously we are working very hard to ensure that spectators can return to stadia as safely as possible, and we are working closely in consultation with the sporting bodies, health and safety experts and officials to do this. We are making real progress. To have a truly successful World Cup event, we need a good, sustainable and solid domestic game, and we are working hard towards that.
Lord Botham (CB) [V]
My Lords, we all welcome the injection of £300 million into rugby union and horseracing, and the safe return of much-needed supporters to stadiums, which will be a lifeline to so many clubs. Do the Government have any plans to financially support cricket, which has faced massive financial difficulties as a result of Covid? Is the Minister willing to favourably consider direct representations from all the cricket clubs affected by Covid?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. As I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, we have had confirmation that so far the ECB has the means to support all the counties over the winter. We are in conversations with the ECB and it would be eligible to apply to the contingency fund—but obviously the best thing for all sports will be to open up and get spectators back as quickly as possible. But I would be more than happy to follow up with the noble Lord directly on his suggestion in relation to individual clubs.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests in the register and I join at the crease the noble Lords, Lord Botham and Lord Razzall. My appeal is not for money but for common sense. In that spirit, will my noble friend ensure that the Government are not overly prescriptive in the measures required to allow a few hundred spectators to attend a game of county cricket? My genuine fear is that the cost of doing so may outweigh both the mental well-being benefit and the financial benefit to the clubs.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right about the value of sport in terms of both physical and mental health. Obviously, with cricket being a summer sport, things may look very different next summer, but the current limits of 4,000 outdoor spectators in tier 1 and 2,000 in tier 2 should make a number of these games viable. Obviously, cricket as a sport lends itself to spacing for spectators, and we are truly optimistic that, by the time county cricket restarts, the prospects for normal crowds will be very good.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, what discussions have the Government had with the officers of the British Olympic Association and UK Sport about the financial implications for both of these bodies if the cancelled Tokyo Olympic Games of 2020 go ahead in 2021?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord, but I will have to write to him in response to his question.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register as a trustee of the Saracens Foundation. I welcome this much-needed support for sport. I know that my noble friend, as we have heard, and our honourable friend Nigel Huddleston in the other place share my strong support for girls’ and women’s sport. Until we can get back into stadia and watch from the sidelines, is there anything that my noble friend can do to encourage broadcasters to showcase more women’s sport?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right about the role that broadcasters can play, and my colleagues within the department are liaising closely with them on this point.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome very much the financial support for this level of sport, but does the Minister share my concerns about the really grass-roots sports clubs—the little clubs, the Saturday morning football clubs that are losing their match fees, and clubs with huge numbers of volunteers whom they are losing at the moment? I join the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who asked earlier whether the Government might consider, once the Covid situation has been sorted, that we may need a really root-and-branch review of everything that is happening in grass-roots sport and how it has been affected?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Moynihan that I will take the suggestion of a thorough review back to the department, but I reiterate what I said earlier about our constant communication. In terms of the real grass roots, I absolutely echo the noble Baroness’s recognition of the value of those organisations to their communities, particularly during this Covid period, in which they have been setting up food banks and providing all sorts of extraordinary help in their communities. That is also why we committed £220 million earlier this year to make sure that exactly those organisations survive.
Lord Hayward (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest, as recorded in the register. May I ask the Minister for clarification in relation to this very welcome news about spectators being allowed back into grounds? Will loans or grants that are given to clubs or organisations be affected by the number of spectators who are allowed into the grounds? Will the decision on numbers allowed in be taken by the Government or in association with the HSE, the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, local police and the like?
Baroness Barran (Con)
In response to the first part of my noble friend’s question I can say that, as we work through the individual awards with the different sporting bodies, we will take into account their projected revenues. So this is about financial need; it will have some bearing on that. With regard to the planning work we are doing around letting fans back into stadia, we have been working closely with the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and, as I mentioned earlier, the Sports Technology and Innovation Group.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
On what date will the number of spectators be reviewed, so that we can answer the question of why Germany can get far more people into its stadiums every week than we will allow? Will the Minister ensure that professional and grass-roots sport are a crucial part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda? In many towns in the north of England, people do not have much money in their pockets. They will not have much money to spend going to rugby league, which will need continued support if its clubs are to survive. It is not just the money to keep going now, which is very welcome, but what will be needed in the next couple of years as well. Will levelling up include sport?
Baroness Barran (Con)
On the first part of the noble Lord’s question about review dates for increasing the number of spectators, those decisions are clearly not taken in isolation and will be part of wider decision-making on what is allowed within different tiers as we move forward. I fear I cannot add more on that point at the moment.
The Government well understand the importance of levelling up and of sport within it. There was obviously a very important infrastructure announcement in the Chancellor’s speech today of £4 billion directed to levelling up, but more specifically, on sport, there have been two important contributions to rugby league so far. We continue to value its contribution and see it as a critical part of rebuilding a sense of pride in local communities.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
As the Minister will have gathered, there is very widespread support for this announcement. But will she make sure that the Government follow where the money is going and ensure that all the recipients pay a proper contribution to diversity and community activity where they are located, because that is why they have such widespread support?
The other thing is the dog that is not yet barking in the night: whether the Premiership will cough up enough money for first and second division football, which have many clubs in communities in real danger. I again put the idea of the Government threatening a windfall tax on transfer fees and television money if the Premiership does not get more realistic about the kind of help it will give.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point about following where the money is going. Part of the role of the independent board is to do just that. On the Premiership, as I and my honourable friend the Minister for Sport have said several times from our respective Dispatch Boxes, we believe that the Premier League has the financial capacity to support the wider football family. We hope that it has the good sense to act on that quickly.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I return to two questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, about the percentage of funding going to women’s sport and what the Minister considers to be the appropriate percentage. I understand that she might not be able to answer now, but perhaps she could write to us later. In responding to the question, she said that the criteria are identical for men’s and women’s sports. Would she agree that equality does not equal equity, particularly when we consider the starting position of women’s sport, with grass-roots participation four percentage points lower than for men? Considering its long history—whether the Football Association actively oppressing women’s football, the Olympic movement refusing to allow women to participate in marathons and longer races for many years, or the attitudes of broadcasters, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, just referred to—does she really not think that there should be a bias towards women’s sport to deal with historical disadvantage?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think the noble Baroness may be conflating two things. This package is very specifically for those sports clubs in real financial difficulty. It is the same whether it is a woman’s sport or a man’s. This is not about trying to level the playing field between men’s and women’s sports. The noble Baroness made entirely valid points about the wider context for women’s sport and I hope she will acknowledge that progress has been made. We are determined to make further progress, but this specific package is about ensuring the survival of clubs. In that regard, women’s sport is on an equal footing to men’s.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I begin by extending my condolences to the worldwide fans of Diego Maradona, who died earlier today.
Youth provision by skilled staff has been a vital source of safe space and plays a critical role for young people who may be vulnerable, empowering them through recreation and sports activities, including, in my area, women’s bicycling clubs. Many youth organisations have had their services shut down, which may leave current generations excluded. I know that the Minister will understand all too well the significance of their inclusion at this time. Will she nudge her department towards grass-roots, community sport, from where the next generation of Beckhams and cricket’s Moeen Alis may come?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that my department does not need any nudging in relation to the importance of sport for young people. As I mentioned, we committed £220 million to grass-roots sport, much of which will benefit young people. Crucially, we have also worked closely with the youth sector throughout the pandemic, so that youth workers are able to carry on providing the critical support for just the vulnerable young people to whom the noble Baroness rightly alludes.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and answered.