Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Baroness Bryan of Partick Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bryan of Partick]

16: Clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraphs (b) to (d)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others are consequential to another in the name of Baroness Bryan of Partick to Clause 17, removing Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland from the territorial application of the Bill.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lord Hain, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who, by adding their names, demonstrate the breadth of opposition to the inclusion of the devolved Administrations in the Bill. As noble Lords can see, Amendment 16—and the consequential amendments that I will not bother to list now—would remove Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland from the territorial application of the Bill.

We are just 25 days away from the 25th anniversary of the first meetings of the Welsh Senedd and the Scottish Parliament in 1999. Those institutions have been around long enough for Ministers to be aware that they are not simply large local authorities. The official advice for civil servants and policymakers on taking account of devolution, as updated in 2020, reads:

“Devolution has fundamentally changed the constitutional arrangements of the UK. Officials need to be aware of how devolution affects the policies they work on or the public services they manage”.


The Government might have been well-advised to consider those guidelines when drafting this Bill.

Intergovernmental relations sometimes feel like one step forward and two steps back. There was the Dunlop review, whose whereabouts were raised in this House numerous occasions before it was discovered in the levelling-up department, where it was somewhat reinterpreted. More recently, there have been a number of important pieces of legislation where the Sewel convention has been ignored. Rather than using the Sewel process as a way of arriving at a shared approach, it has now become common practice to ignore it and take action without legislative consent.

The Interparliamentary Forum report published in January noted that there were

“ongoing challenges of intergovernmental relations including operation of the UK Internal Market Act, and the scrutiny of intergovernmental working”,

and

“substantial challenges in reaching agreement between the governments of the UK”.

Some academics have put this down to the Government having a unitary mindset, even after 25 years of devolution, and not accepting that there has been a fundamental change in the constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am not quite sure what will happen about Xinjiang; that is a foreign affairs question. Obviously, although it is not referred to in the Bill, we have made it clear that we will use the Bill, where appropriate, to exempt areas. We have already said we will use the powers in relation to Russia and Belarus. I am going to talk to the Welsh Government, and I am sure this is a question that will come up. As I said, I hope to meet them in the coming weeks to discuss further how we can gain support for the Bill and what would be the right approach.

In Northern Ireland we have been formally seeking consent from the Northern Ireland Assembly since the restoration of power sharing and will continue to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, asked for reassurances that we have engaged with the Northern Ireland Executive. Officials have discussed the Bill’s provisions with officials in Northern Ireland and have been actively pursuing engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive now that power sharing has been restored. I hope to be able to meet Ministers in the Executive to seek their consent for the Bill soon.

In response to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about what would happen if a public authority does not pay a penalty, we would advise public authorities to reconsider before refusing to pay a fine as the enforcement process, which I think we will come on to discuss on subsequent days, makes it clear that it could end up being enforced by the respective court system of the devolved area. The enforcement authority can apply to the court for the enforcement of an information notice. A failure to pay a fine is a civil debt, to answer the point that was made in an earlier group by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, under Clause 10(3). This will be through the courts in the relevant devolved jurisdiction, so if a Scottish council was subject to an information notice or issued with a fine, that would be enforced by the Scottish courts.

I am conscious it is late. We have had a lively conversation on this subject. I hope that for the reasons I have set out the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her response and everybody who has participated in this discussion. The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, believe that there should be one voice in all international policy, but procurement is a devolved issue and, as we have heard, Clauses 1 to 4 require legislative consent. The worry is they require it, so they can ignore it, but I hope not.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, put his finger on the issue of subsidiarity versus centralisation. Are we going to have one centralised procurement body for the whole of the UK that will choose which procurement is in line with the Government of the day’s international policy? I do not think anybody wants to go down that route. There is strong concern about the backpedalling, as it was described, and the resentment that this will cause. Remember that 50%-plus of voters support independence in Scotland. They might not be ready to vote for it at this time, but give them a push further along, and we might find that that happens. More Welsh voters are coming to support independence, and Northern Ireland is being held together by constant vigilance. I hope that the concerns raised here are taken seriously and that the Government engage properly with the devolved Administrations, discuss their trade plans with them and do not treat them as a minor inconvenience that gets in the way of the big issues of government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Baroness Bryan of Partick Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, over the past few years we have seen many Bills in this House that show a worrying disregard for humanity, but as far as I know this is the first that actually instructs public bodies to disregard morality. The Government state that they want to stop public bodies pursuing their own foreign policy. Most public bodies have no desire for a foreign policy but may find that some countries fall short of the ethical or moral standards that the public body holds as an essential requirement for any business relationship.

As of two weeks ago, the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights listed 110 ongoing armed conflicts, and that figure has probably increased since then. I hope that any public body would take account of whether its investment or procurement contributed to the ability of countries to act aggressively against others or to suppress their own populations.

The right of women and girls to live in safety is not protected in many countries, and any UK public body that is uncritical of an offending Government should be ashamed of itself. Some Governments are failing to protect children from exploitation by global companies. Most of us would expect public bodies not to procure goods made in those conditions.

Protecting the environment and workers’ rights should also be important in making decisions. However, financial consultants are warning that even the apparent exceptions may not protect public bodies from being challenged, leading to possibly lengthy legal proceedings.

The Quakers powerfully point out that:

“While the British government has said it will immediately exempt Russia and Belarus from the legislation, it has made no such commitment to exempt other countries that are known to be committing human rights abuses … This Bill gives the government the power to control which”


violations of international law

“public bodies can protest and which ones they must keep silent about. We contend that public bodies should have the freedom to shed light on abuses around the world, even (perhaps especially) areas where the national government would rather avoid scrutiny”.

Ultimately, the Bill acts as a way of gagging public bodies, including elected bodies, stopping them publicly expressing what they believe is in the best interests of those they represent. To prohibit the publication of statements from public bodies indicating that they would act against offending countries if it were lawful to do so has to be one of the worst attacks on freedom of speech.

This means that, if electors approach their local authority or pensioners approach their pension scheme to ask why they are investing in a country that oppresses its own citizens, or which is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths of women and children in an occupied country, they are prohibited from saying that they would have liked to boycott the culprit country but government legislation makes that illegal.

Paragraph 33 of the Explanatory Notes gets us into further confusion when it states:

“For example, councillors of a local authority are not a public authority and, therefore, are not prohibited from expressing support for or voting in favour of a motion supporting a boycott or divestment policy.”


The Minister’s explanation supports my understanding that, if a local council adopted a motion supporting such a policy, the “public authority” would have to refuse to implement it. Does the Minister accept that this is a form of doublethink, and can she help us out by clarifying this point?

The Bill, like many others over the past few years, seeks to grab power from other national and regional Governments. It acts to ensure that there is only one centralised power: the Executive, acting in the name of parliamentary sovereignty and imposing their will, without reference to other elected bodies across the UK. If I had time, I would refer to the proud record of Glasgow, as referenced by my noble friend Lord Hain, in supporting oppressed people in other countries, often in opposition to the views of a Conservative Government. The Scottish Government will, if able, withhold legislative consent—and should have that right. They have also raised important concerns about the use of delegatory powers built into the Bill, which I hope we will be exploring at later stages.

Finally, the Bill is clearly discriminatory, as has been expressed by many noble Lords, in giving a uniquely high level of protection from political and moral disapproval to one state above all others in the world. The written evidence from Jews for Justice for Palestinians, submitted in August 2023, points out that it is not the actual boycott and disinvestment advocacy that leads to “increases in antisemitic incidents” but rather

“spikes of violence in Israel and Palestine, particularly with … major Israeli … attacks on Palestinian areas”.

That is where the spikes are shown to come from, as stated in August last year. Can the Minister answer the concerns of my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington that the Bill is not an effective challenge to anti-Semitism and cannot justify why Israel should be given unique status under the Bill, while every other state in the world can be added and removed by delegatory powers?

Covid-19 and the Use and Scrutiny of Emergency Powers (Constitution Committee Report)

Baroness Bryan of Partick Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Select Committee for another excellent report. While it is a shame that it has taken so long for it to be considered, many of the issues raised remain very relevant and have constitutional implications that are very much alive and unresolved.

The report rightly identifies that, by its very nature, a global pandemic cannot be contained within borders; there had to be joint action and intergovernmental collaboration. But the report quite rightly states, in paragraph 92:

“A core principle underpinning the UK’s devolution arrangements is the respect that the UK Government and the devolved administrations must show for each other’s areas of competence.”


It notes that communication and co-ordination had been “close and effective”, while at other times that had been “less evident”.

One important lesson is that during the time when the First Ministers participated in COBRA there appeared to be successful co-ordination. What made this effective was a commitment to a shared approach and shared decision-making. Once this broke down, the result was confusion and a lack of trust. We have to ask why, at this point, a joint ministerial committee was not tasked with continuing the collaboration.

The House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee recommended that there be regular intergovernmental meetings, but this was not accepted by government. With hindsight, this was a missed opportunity that could have built bridges between those making decisions —rather than barriers, which broke down co-operation.

Living in Scotland, I was aware of the confusion among businesses and individuals as to which rules covered the whole UK, which were Scottish regulations and which applied only to one local authority area. The First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, called the situation “utterly shambolic”. It was particularly difficult for people living and working across borders.

I believe the main reason for confusion is the asymmetry of the UK. When the Prime Minister speaks on national television, is he speaking as the Prime Minister of the UK or as the equivalent of the First Minister of England? He does not generally make that distinction, so it is not surprising that others, including the London-based media, do not acknowledge it either.

During 2021 we saw tensions between the devolved Governments and the UK Government, but also between English regions and the Government. Central government imposed different regulations on different regions at different times. Because of the varying devolution deals, this resulted in different levels of support and compensation. It has been suggested that this has raised interest in and support for more regional devolution. Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, has argued that all parts of the north need substantial regional devolution. He suggests that the House of Lords needs to be an elected senate of the nations and regions.

The committee’s recommendations have been enhanced by its more recent report, Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century. I very much look forward to being able to discuss that report—I hope without such a long wait. We have yet to see whether the new structures for intergovernmental relations will contribute to more effective systems of collaboration.

I am sorry that the Government’s response to the report did not cover the sections on co-ordination across the UK, including relations between central and local government. The worry is that, unless there is an acknowledgement that each part of the governance of the UK should be treated with esteem and not simply be subjected to the vagaries of central government, the tensions that occurred in response to Covid will happen again and contribute to the growing lack of trust.

Can the Minister give any explanation as to why there was no response to the concerns raised in recommendations 16 to 20? Could he also say what lessons have been learned from the way in which decisions were taken during this period? Finally, will he share his thoughts on the views expressed by Andy Burnham about regional devolution and a second Chamber of the nations and regions?

Devolved Administrations

Baroness Bryan of Partick Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not directly responsible for the professional qualifications legislation, so I am loath to give an incautious answer, but obviously I will refer my noble friend’s comments to those who are considering these matters.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, contrary to the Minister’s remarks, it sometimes seems that by their actions the Government are deliberately strengthening the case for independence in Scotland and Wales. Does he appreciate that Scotland is split 50/50 on the issue of independence, and that perhaps the only way to find common ground is to complete the unfinished business of devolution by starting discussions on how to build a federation of the regions and nations of the UK?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, there is a difference in philosophy, which is unfortunate, in that the United Kingdom Government, the party opposite—I believe—we ourselves and the other parties represented in this House believe in a United Kingdom. Sadly, the Administration in Scotland, now supported by the Greens, have a different view and wish to break up the United Kingdom. Despite that, this Government’s duty and responsibility are to govern in the interests of all the people of the United Kingdom, seeking the fullest co-operation and showing the greatest respect that we can. That will continue to guide us.

Cash Network

Baroness Bryan of Partick Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend that cash remains a very important measure of exchange in this country. It is now the second most important—it is less important than it was—but we are committed to supporting it.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, in answer to a Question on 19 July this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, stated that

“industry is best placed to develop the most efficient and sustainable solutions for access to cash”.—[Official Report, 19/7/21; col. 3.]

If that is the case, can the Minister explain why 8,000 ATMs—13% of the total—have disappeared in the past 18 months, making access to cash even more difficult?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

To reassure the noble Baroness, there are still some 40,000 ATMs in the country at the last count, and we remain committed to supporting their continuation. Link, the payment services provider for cash machines, has restated that a number of times. The other side of the coin is that the percentage of transactions using cash has declined dramatically; it was 56% of all transactions in 2010, and is now down to 17%. The usage is declining, which is why some of these facilities are going.

UK Government Union Capability

Baroness Bryan of Partick Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the present Government came to power with a commitment to significant constitutional change. Their manifesto pledged that a Conservative Government would hold a constitutional review to restore “trust in our democracy”. As well as the Conservatives, every other major party had commitments relating to constitutional change. Polling showed that 85% of people felt dissatisfied with the political system. All this contributed to a sense that there would be change.

There was an opportunity for a wider debate around the Dunlop review but it was never allowed to happen. Eventually, we discovered that one of the findings was that Whitehall had little understanding of or interest in devolution. That was confirmed by the imposition of the internal market Act.

Constitutional reviews are loudly announced but quietly disappear. We heard from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, on 14 June that the Government had

“no plans to establish an inquiry into the constitution.”—[Official Report, 14/6/21; col. 1657.]

He also said that there could be no sharing of sovereignty. That, in effect, means that there is no constitutional protection for the devolved Administrations. The regions and nations all face a battle to protect themselves from the centralising agenda of this Government. Will the Minister accept the suggestion that the Government should invite the nations and regions to undertake the unfinished business of devolution and ask them to lead a constitutional review?

Financial Services Bill

Baroness Bryan of Partick Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part on this group of amendments. I declare my financial services interests and say just this: the borrowers are not to blame, but they bear the burden. Does my noble friend the Minister agree?

In agreeing to a large extent with my noble friend Lady Noakes, with regret I am not convinced that these are necessarily the amendments to resolve the issue. Can the Minister set out what action he believes the Treasury and FCA are taking in this area? There clearly is an issue even if we accept that the numbers may be disputed, or that there are different categories and specific circumstances. These are all important points to be considered, but they still leave issues to be addressed. Will the Minister set out anything he can about what actions the Treasury will take and what the approach of the FCA will be to address these points?

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great honour to participate in this group of amendments, and particularly to support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who has worked tirelessly to support mortgage prisoners. I feel I am in a similar place to my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port when he spoke in Committee. I will speak as someone inexperienced in high finance but who understands the importance of having a home—not as a financial asset or investment, but as somewhere safe and secure to live. To make this most basic need a pawn in the machinations of greed-driven financial transactions, as demonstrated by the financial crash of 2008, is an absolutely unacceptable face of capitalism.

Every Government since 1979 have encouraged people to see home ownership as a sign of virtue. When the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, was Secretary of State for the Environment, he said:

“Home ownership stimulates the attitudes of independence and self-reliance that are the bedrock of a free society.”


But for many people, the period of their mortgage is a rollercoaster ride of anxiety, always dependent on matters far outside their control. The day the mortgage is paid off must rank among the best days of people’s lives. Many mortgage prisoners fear they will never see that day.

The FCA reported in July 2020 that around a quarter of a million people have their mortgages held by inactive firms. The majority of these people were up to date with their payments and, in any other circumstances, would have been able to adjust their mortgages and repayment patterns to suit their individual needs. No one would choose to remain on the SVR for years on end, so to compare their entrapment on that rate to those who may be on it temporarily, while they seek an alternative, is disingenuous. These people have been denied that opportunity, not through any decision they made or any fault on their part, but because of the way the Government chose to sell off mortgage loan books. It was not just people’s mortgages that changed hands, it was people’s lives—they were being bought and sold.

This Bill was viewed with real optimism among some mortgage prisoners. They thought amendments relating to SVR would help transform their lives, but how often have they been here before? Last year, there was hope that the FCA’s more lenient affordability checks would help some escape, but very few succeeded. For many more, their lives were made even more difficult by the impact of Covid-19. The report from the LSE in November 2020 makes the point that the FCA has now reached the limit of its powers. This means that only the Government can help to free mortgage prisoners. Instead, while Parliament was considering amendments aimed at protecting mortgage prisoners, the auctions continued. All the warm words and expressions of concern from Ministers meant nothing. The Treasury’s sole concern was that these people must deliver value for money for the Government.

These amendments are considered and cautious. Their implementation would not undermine capitalism or fundamentally damage the whole system of mortgage delivery, but would give some safeguards to a specific group of mortgage prisoners who have struggled for more than 10 years as victims of the failure of the very system the Government are defending. If it is not to be these amendments, what help will the Minister offer? Unless there is a clear alternative, I hope we will be given the opportunity to vote on at least one of them. I would be very pleased to give my support.

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is clearly acknowledged that there is a problem. It is evident to me that this is exactly the sort of problem that the Government ought to sort out because, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, we have no business landing this on the lending community. It is our responsibility. The Bill is an opportunity to make sure that something is done, and I very much hope that we take it.

Dunlop Review

Baroness Bryan of Partick Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord makes a very strong point. I agree with him—and, indeed, with the preceding question—that that voice for the union of the United Kingdom should be heard. We recognise that political differences exist between the Administration in Scotland and our Government, but our ambition remains to conclude jointly the inter-governmental relations review. That is one of the important strands behind this Question.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Dunlop review was completed before the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, so it may already be out of date. The chairs of the Scottish Affairs, Welsh Affairs and Northern Ireland Affairs Committees are as much in the dark as the rest of us. Can the Minister explain how Michael Gove can already be implementing the Dunlop recommendations when he has not even shared the report with the devolved Administrations?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is second to none in his commitment to reinforce the United Kingdom and to carry that work forward. So, almost by definition, he is acting constantly every day in line with the aspirations of the Dunlop report.

Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Baroness Bryan of Partick Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True [V]]

My Lords, again, my noble friend makes important points. It is certainly the Government’s intention to improve electoral procedures—separate announcements have been made on that—but Section 7 of the Act lays specific duties on the Prime Minister, and the Government must observe the law of the land.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]]

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report in September 2010 on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill received evidence that the Bill had been prepared on an extraordinarily rushed timetable and introduced with no prior consultation and no Green or White Paper; nor had time been allowed for pre-legislative scrutiny. The committee’s concerns were entirely justified. We cannot go on making quick-fix changes to resolve short-term political problems. Does the Minister agree that we need a thorough overhaul of our constitution, particularly on the role of the nations and regions in the post-EU United Kingdom?

Banks: Cash Withdrawals

Baroness Bryan of Partick Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Bryan of Partick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that banks provide free withdrawals from current accounts at cash machines.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the government-established Payment Systems Regulator regulates LINK, the scheme that runs the UK’s largest ATM network. The regulator is using its powers to hold LINK to account over LINK’s public commitments to maintain the broad geographic spread of free ATMs across the UK. The UK has one of the most extensive free-to-use ATM networks in the world. Around 80% of the UK’s ATM estate is free to use and 97% of transactions occur on free-to-use ATMs.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer and welcome the Government’s recent attention to this problem, but we have to bear in mind that the number of free-to-use ATMs that are closing is escalating. The report by Access to Cash Review, published a few months ago, warns that we are sleepwalking into a cashless society that will leave millions behind. Banks are encouraging a cashless economy because they can save on staff and property costs, but these savings are not passed on to customers. Instead, those who use apps and computers become unpaid workers of the bank, and those without access to technology are finding it harder to access bank services. Will the Minister support the proposal by Ged Killen, MP in the other place to ban charges for using ATMs and make banks responsible for giving their customers free access to their own money within reasonable distance from their homes?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand the noble Baroness’s concern for those who do not have access to free-to-use ATMs. I hope she will be reassured that the number of free-to-use ATMs in Scotland increased by 85% between 2008 and 2018, from 2,800 to 5,200. But the noble Baroness’s Question encapsulates a real challenge for Governments today: how do we respond to technological change which is cost-effective, popular, cheap and embraced by the vast majority but, for whatever reason, is not used by a minority? The use of cash fell by 16% last year. Only 28% of transactions were in cash—that figure is forecast to fall to 10%—and 5 million adults apparently did not use cash at all last year. The Government’s policy is quite clear: we want the Payment Systems Regulator to hold LINK’s feet to the fire—to its public commitment to maintain the broad spread of free-to-use ATMs. It has powers of direction and can levy fines to deliver that commitment. On her final question, if you ban charges you lose the pay-to-use ATMs, of course, and might prejudice the existence of the free-to-use ATMs by reducing the revenue stream for ATM owners.