Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his partial answer to my point, but he will find if he goes back to the department that proof of recognition will have to be re-presented if people are moving jobs. If that is not the case, I will be happy to accept it and we can have one of his famous letters on the subject. My understanding is that this is not his department’s doing but part of the hostile environment that the Home Office still pursues; the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made the point about the hangover from previous incidents. My understanding is clear on this, so I would be pleased if the Minister is able to disabuse me of it.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, to add to that, I listened carefully to the Minister when he spoke about the person holding the qualification, but my concern relates to the qualification itself. If somebody holds a qualification that was mutually recognised in the EU, has not yet come to this country but wishes to in five years’ time, will that qualification remain recognised as it would have previously or is there a possibility of additional hurdles being put in place for that person coming in? I go back to the term “grandfathering” and whether the recognition that existed will continue, or whether it continues only up to date for those people who are currently on a register in this country and possibly have settled status. That was not clear, or perhaps I did not understand it.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Lord Fox

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 102A is a probing amendment to probe the legal basis for the introduction of the provisions in this part and whether they are covered by existing law.

It is a human trait to disregard history that happened before we were born. Most of what we have been describing as previous law and previous regulation has centred on EU law and devolution settlements. However, in their Command Paper, the Government hark back much further than that to the 1700s and the Act of Union. In their July paper, the Government stated that

“the Internal Market has been enshrined in British law for over three centuries”

on the basis of the Acts of Union. I will spare noble Lords the lengthy history lesson, but within this document it says:

“For centuries, the UK Internal Market has been the bedrock of our shared prosperity ever since 1707 when the Acts of Union formally united England and Wales with Scotland.”


The reason we were talking about the General Teaching Council for Scotland regulating Scottish teachers was because that Act of Union specifically carved out education as a Scottish prerogative. That particular activity of regulating Scottish teachers is a direct result of the Act of Union. It has nothing to do with devolution and nothing to do with the European Union.

Quite simply, I am asking for clarification: where does the Act of Union sit within this scheme of things? And where does previous law, made as a result of that Act of Union over the centuries that have followed, but before all these other bits of history we have been talking about, sit? It is not a philosophical question; it is real, because the example I have just given is real. I am sure there are many others for clever people to uncover.

Therefore, I would like to have some sense of the Government’s position, which appears somewhat ambivalent towards the Act of Union. They mention it in the Command Paper but, in a sense, disregard it thereafter. With that in mind, I beg to move Amendment 102A.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 104 is almost identical to Amendment 6, which we debated on Monday, and Amendment 69, which I moved only a few hours ago. Those two amendments related, respectively, to goods in Part 1 and services in Part 2. This amendment, in the case of “recognition of professional qualifications”, seeks to make the application of the market access principles subordinate to the common frameworks process. In other words, the market access principles can be applied to professional qualifications only in the event that it proves impossible, by consensus, for the four Governments to agree a common framework.

Amendment 105 is consequential, simply moving the time point at which the mutual recognition principle would start to apply. While Part 3 is arguably more niche and therefore less damaging than the two parts that precede it, it is even more complex. I do not understand the exceptions that it suggests or the manner in which these could legitimately be handled.

Clause 24, for example, provides that the automatic mutual recognition of qualifications does not apply where a process of individual assessment is available but only in so far as the process conforms to four different principles. This includes the following principle in subsection (4)(c):

“to the extent that the applicant cannot, on application of the principles set out in paragraphs (a) and (b), demonstrate the necessary knowledge and skills to the satisfaction of the regulatory body, the applicant should (subject to subsection (5)) have an opportunity to do so by way of a test or assessment the demands of which are proportionate to the deficiency”.

However, this is subject to a further condition:

“The process may, without contravening the principle set out in subsection (4)(c), allow the regulatory body in a case to which this subsection applies to decline the application without the applicant first being offered a test or assessment as described in that principle.”


I am not a lawyer, and I will happily defer to any noble and learned Member who can enlighten me, but this appears to me to say that you have to give an individual the opportunity to prove that they possess the attributes necessary to do the job through a process of individual assessment, but you are nevertheless allowed to decline an application without first offering the individual a test.

Although I am not a lawyer, I am assured by those who are that this whole part is, to put it crudely, somewhat of a licence for the legal profession to print money and tie up regulators in litigation that could last years. Perhaps unsurprisingly, only one of the professions that is specifically exempted from this whole part is the legal profession. I am sorry; I know that sounds cynical, but I do find this very difficult to understand. I genuinely believe that, in trying to ensure that the mutual access principles can apply only to the recognition of qualifications when it is truly needed, I am trying to rescue the Government from themselves.

I shall give some examples of where this part of the Bill could prove damaging to the rights of devolved Governments, or indeed to those of the UK Government. Let us suppose that a more enlightened Westminster Government want to make a level 3 qualification in nutrition a requirement of registration as a nursery nurse in an effort to reduce childhood obesity. Presumably a qualified nursery nurse from Northern Ireland, where such a course was not a requirement, would still be able to apply for registration in England. Would this be automatic? Would they have to undertake a test? Could they be refused even without being given the right to take a test, as Clause 22(5) seems to permit? I would really appreciate some clarification.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Lord Fox

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I appreciate the way that the House authorities and all Benches have worked to enable us to challenge the Government safely, and am glad to conduct our business from the safety of isolation.

I support this amendment introduced by the powerful speeches of those sponsoring it and that of my noble friend Lady O’Loan. She described the horrors, yet many more as yet undescribed are happening. We are horrified at home by even small acts of violence towards people whose characteristics are protected in our laws, so how can we ignore gross violations elsewhere, turn a blind eye and pretend all is well out of convenience to ourselves?

History repeats itself. In the Second World War, in the early 1940s, concentration camp victims were used as workers by Siemens and many others. Now, we have ever-growing evidence of gross abuses of human rights in China. The chilling evidence from the independent tribunal of Geoffrey Nice QC found overwhelming evidence of forced organ harvesting. Yet we fail to act on its findings. We need legislative teeth, not sympathetic noises and wringing of hands. Professor Zenz’s report, published today, reveals the forced sterilisation of Uighur women in Xinjiang and the high internment rate of women in retraining camps. His supplementary paper on the relationship with Huawei, also published today, finishes:

“We must conclude that Huawei is directly implicated in Beijing police state and related human rights violations in Xinjiang, and that it has lied to the public about this fact on at least two different occasions.”


We must not be actors in history repeating itself because anything looks convenient or a bargain. We must not become complicit in human rights abuses on a massive scale. I will borrow the words of Andrew Griffiths, the then honourable Member for Burton, in a debate last March on forced organ harvesting:

“we have seen this before ... If we look at history, we see that there were opportunities for Governments to intervene and act, but they did not”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/19; col. 46WH.]

Now is the time to say “This must stop” and to uphold our values in all our commercial dealings. We must develop other supply chains. We must produce our own consumables, PPE and hospital equipment, not only telecoms equipment. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, we must start somewhere. If my noble friends, led by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, test the opinion of the House, I will vote “Content” with them. If not, we must hold the Government to account to bring forward proper protection of human rights, and it will be to our shame if we do not act.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was going to promise to be brief but, after the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, I am not quite going to match his brevity. We have heard some very powerful speeches and some very broad speeches today, and noble Lords are to be commended for that. However, there is one group of people who have not yet been mentioned, and that is the management and the directors of the companies potentially sourcing equipment to deliver the infrastructure in this country. Every company, in any business sector, has the potential to impact a range of human rights issues, and it is up to the board of that company to understand the impact it is having and to deal with it. This amendment, powerfully spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, sends an important signal to businesses in this sector.

In her speech, I think I heard the Minister say that the impact was transferred from the equipment suppliers to the operators. Well, the operators are the people who source this equipment. Their boards have a responsibility to their shareholders and wider society to make sure that they do the right thing. It is clear that more boards are taking these issues more seriously, and this debate and subsequent changes should provide more emphasis for future boards and those future discussions. It has also permeated into the fund management world. Increasingly, investors look to invest in companies that act ethically and do the right thing.

This has been a huge debate but, narrowly speaking, we should expect our companies in this country to act ethically, and we should, as legislators, give companies as much guidance as we can regarding what that means in principle. That has been the nature of this debate.

Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Alton, decides to press this vote, we will support this amendment from these Benches, as we have said. If, however, he chooses to discuss with the Minister bringing something back on Third Reading, we would also support that—but what is brought back has to be substantive; it has to be real. I do not think the mood of the House can be satisfied by something that seems to push this into the long grass.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Lord Fox

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

In that case, we will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox]

Amendment 17 seeks to remove the 18-month time limit, while Amendment 19 seeks a mechanism that would extend it. Both amendments are guided by the same curiosity. In a sense, what was driving the Government’s objective in including the limit of 18 months? As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked, why was the period of 18 months chosen? Why not 20, 16 or 28? What was the economic analysis that arrived at 18 months? In consulting with operators, what was it that any operator said that encouraged the Government to put this clause in? I cannot imagine it was anything, so I can conclude only that it was about what grant is set. We are back on the same balance of the equation in terms of where the Bill balances itself between the granters and the operators, who are essentially the champions of the consumer in this process.

Can the Minister explain what it was that the granters, landlords and owners put to the Government that pushed them into putting in this 18-month time limit? As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, it will seriously compromise the investment prospects for operators, particularly in difficult or harder-to-reach areas––possibly places like where I come from in Herefordshire. Why would an operator invest huge sums of money without any security, knowing that in 18 months’ time that investment could be written down to zero? These amendments together are all part of the same spirit of inquiry. What was the Government’s thinking when this was included in the Bill?