Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Garden of Frognal and Lord Lansley

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to be present at Second Reading, so I will not detain noble Lords with my views about the Bill in general terms. However, I hope that I will be forgiven if I have not been able to say those things previously.

Amendment 11 in my name seeks to amend government Amendment 10. My noble friend the Minister has explained helpfully and clearly how the Government have brought forward amendments even before the Committee stage to points made at Second Reading and by the regulators. That is extremely helpful, and I agree with them. There was always a risk that if there was a generic recognition of overseas qualifications or experience, an individual would be deemed to have met the required standard in the United Kingdom, but not necessarily by that individual’s experience, qualifications or other factors. My noble friend referred to things such as language assessment. When I was Secretary of State for Health, we were closely engaged in our dealings on this with other countries in the European Union. It is simply not the case that because someone undertakes qualifications that are deemed to be the equivalent of those in the United Kingdom, people are able to practise here in a way that is not impaired. We set about trying to remedy that and we need to make sure that we do not introduce legislation which would reintroduce the same kind of problem.

I encourage noble Lords to look at government Amendment 10. I understand what is intended, but I think that there is a drafting problem. The determinations set out in proposed subsections (3A) (b) (i) and (ii) state that the qualifications and experience are substantially the same or may fall short. Those determinations are to be made

“(i) only on the basis of the overseas qualifications or overseas experience concerned, or (ii) on such other basis”.

The inclusion of the word “only” means either qualifications and experience on the one hand or on another basis on the other hand, but it cannot be both. I do not see why that is the case. To me, it is transparent that we may be looking for an individual to have overseas qualifications and experience, but the regulator should have the flexibility to look at other assessments or experience. For example, I can think of someone I met while I was in hospital not so long ago who looked after me. He was a medically qualified practitioner from overseas, but he was working as a technician in the NHS because his qualification was not recognised for our purposes. However, his experience here in the United Kingdom treating patients should have been taken into account in assessing, for example, his linguistic competence and other experience.

If, for example, a regulator wanted to look at overseas qualifications and experience, as well as UK experience, why should it not be able to do that? The inclusion of the word “only” precludes such a combination on its plain meaning. That may not be the Government’s intention, and obviously I will not press this amendment, but I hope that, at the very least, my noble friend will undertake to look at this and say that leaving out the word “only” might enable this amendment to the Bill to do what he wishes it to do.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the government amendments in this group. I want to speak in particular to Amendments 2 and 3, but having just listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I can see that Amendment 11 has an awful lot to commend it.

At Second Reading, I expressed concern that proficiency in English was not a prerequisite for individuals to be treated as having UK qualifications. I was prepared to put down an amendment to that effect, but I readily acknowledge that this is a matter much better left to the regulators than put in the Bill. The addition of the words “any other specified condition” leaves this in the hands of the regulators. It is hoped that many of them will recognise the importance that anyone working in the UK should speak and understand English. It is important not only for professional but for social reasons. We are still, alas, a hopelessly monolingual country, and any overseas worker who can speak only their language will have a difficult time both with their fellow workers and with sorting out their everyday life, however brilliantly they are qualified and however much experience they have.

Clause 1 concerns qualifications and experience, but leaves it with the regulator to consider whether experience makes up for any lack of appropriate qualifications. These amendments put the onus exactly where it should be—on the regulator. We on these Benches support the amendments.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Garden of Frognal and Lord Lansley

Committee stage
Thursday 15th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend. My amendment in this group is Amendment 113, which I shall come to at the end, where it is listed. However, there are two other areas that I shall briefly touch on.

First, Amendment 81, and those linked to it, cover appointments to the Board of Trade, or indeed to the trade advisory groups. I have a disinclination, I have to say, for statute or, indeed, the Select Committees of either House to be reaching into government departments and telling Secretaries of State who they should have to advise them. Amendment 81 probably misses the point, in that there are, as I understand it, very few appointments to the Board of Trade as such; most of the appointments being discussed are appointments of advisers to the board rather than members of the board itself. However, that is neither here nor there from my point of view. If Ministers are able to give the Committee assurances about the balance they will bring, I would be perfectly happy that they are getting balanced advice—that is terribly important.

Secondly, on Amendment 107, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh are venturing back into the territory I ventured into on Tuesday. I said that there should be a pre-appointment hearing of the International Trade Select Committee of the other place for the appointment of the chair. I await a letter from my noble friend the Minister explaining why I am wrong. I may well be wrong, but the point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: we are dealing here not with the appointment of those who advise the Secretary of State in his own department but an independent body. That independent body is accountable to Parliament, and Parliament should have a say, although not a determining say, in who is appointed to chair it.

I am not proposing, as Amendment 107 does, that these appointments of non-executive members of the Trade Remedies Authority should be subject to consent—that goes further than I would—but the appointment of the TRA chair is important. It has impact and, if not wide public importance, very wide business importance. It is something that should be clearly commented on by Parliament. That does not mean that Ministers cannot go ahead and appoint whom they wish. Indeed, even where there is a pre-appointment confirmatory hearing in other cases, Ministers, when I last looked, on nine occasions made recommendations to which Select Committees objected, and on six of those occasions, Ministers went ahead anyway. It would not prevent Ministers doing what they want to do, but it would give them Parliament’s view, so I am rather sympathetic to that amendment.

Amendment 113 is not about appointments or the membership of the TRA; it refers to Clause 6, which gives the Trade Remedies Authority the power—indeed, the obligation—to give advice to the Secretary of State in a number of respects, and the Secretary of State can request such advice. The Trade Remedies Authority is an independent body; there is a statutory relationship with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State may ask for advice. For example, and I make no apology for coming back to this, let us say that we are talking about the Airbus and Boeing dispute, and the Secretary of State has asked the Trade Remedies Authority for advice on the “trade remedy measures” adopted by the United States in relation to that dispute, as both sides have secured World Trade Organization consent to the imposition of additional duties. When the Secretary of State asks for that, it is something on which the Trade Remedies Authority should expose for accountability purposes that it has given advice when it comes to the annual report.

It is important, and the fact that its advice has been sought is also important. I do not expect the annual report to go into obsessive or spurious detail, but, when one makes an annual report for an independent body accountable to Parliament, it should tell us how and when this statutory provision has been deployed during the year.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Judd. No? Let us go to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Garden of Frognal and Lord Lansley

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I apologise. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would like to speak after the Minister. I got that message late.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful. Just for the avoidance of doubt, will my noble friend the Minister agree that it is not without precedent for pre-appointment hearings to take place for appointments made by Ministers? I think that under the Cabinet Office guidance there are about 50 of such. I was not proposing that the chair of the Trade Remedies Authority be included, although, frankly, the fact of it having public impact, being important and being required to be independent would justify including it in that list. Will my noble friend go away and consider whether this appointment should be subject to pre-appointment hearing?

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Garden of Frognal and Lord Lansley

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 22nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to contribute on Report. I declare an interest in that I am a director of a company that is in partnership with another company whose client is UK Fisheries. It is not a very direct interest, but I would not want anyone to be unaware of the connection.

We discussed this in Committee, when I contributed, and then and now I express my support for the intention behind the amendment. It seems entirely right that we put sustainability, and environmental sustainability in particular, at the heart of what we set out to do. But as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, quite rightly said, he is intending to support the Government’s own intentions in that sense. Sustainability is not outwith the Government’s intentions but central to them. The debate has already demonstrated through its contributions—for example, that of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, and subsequently that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville—the way in which the sustainability objective interacts with other fisheries objectives. The precautionary objective, the scientific evidence objective, the ecosystem objective and effectively all other objectives interact with the sustainability objective in one way or another. Putting the sustainability objective as the prime objective simply asserts in a literal sense that it comes first, but to suggest that it is somehow more important or overrides any of the others would be misplaced, since actually integral parts of the sustainability objective are reflected in other fisheries objectives. The point of the Bill is for the fisheries policy authorities to express clearly in the joint fisheries statement what their balance and their mechanisms for achieving the objectives overall are to be.

That said, if the sustainability objective were by virtue of this amendment to be treated as the prime objective in statute, we would have problems. The first is that I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was accurate in how he described his own amendment, since he described it as putting environmental sustainability above other objectives. Actually, if one looks at it, it puts the sustainability objective as the prime fisheries objective, and under the sustainability objective are both proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b). Proposed new paragraph (b) deals with

“economic, social and employment benefits”

and economic viability. By stating that the sustainability objective is the prime fisheries objective, we do not simply state that environmental sustainability must come first. It is already more complicated than that, so I am not sure that it adds the simplicity for which the advocates of the amendment are looking.

My second problem—people can argue about the other points I have made, but this and my next point make it very difficult to accept this amendment—is that attaching this statutory provision to one of the objectives, which is in a series of objectives that must be prioritised and balanced in the joint fisheries statement, would create unacceptable legal risk. From then on, every time any of the fisheries policy authorities says how it thinks meeting the objectives should be balanced in the statement, somebody can say that—particularly in the short term—it might be prejudicial to environmental sustainability, and, because that is not fundamentally defined in the statute, by whatever definition of environmental sustainability they attach to it they could directly challenge the decisions set out in a joint fisheries statement and throw the legal certainty the statements are intended to convey out of the window. That is a serious problem.

Thirdly, while the structure of the amendment incorporates the original text of the sustainability objective, it has rewritten it in a rather odd and disturbing way. The economic, social and employment benefits, the availability of food supplies and having fishing capacity without overexploiting marine stocks are all still mentioned, but under the heading “fishing fleets must”. What does that mean in statute? Does it mean that it is the responsibility of the fisheries policy authorities and of the Government? Or is this a statutory provision telling the fishing fleets that they must accept responsibility for all the other secondary objectives and that these are no longer the responsibility of Government?

I do not understand how the amendment works, and I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, did not explain why it has been written such that, subject to the environmental sustainability objective being met, fishing fleets “must” do these things. By what mechanism will they do them? Who tells them to do them? How is it set out in statute? This amendment does not deliver any of that. For those two latter reasons in particular, the amendment is flawed and I cannot support it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.