Social Mobility: Sutton Trust Opportunity Index
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think that the lessons that were learned are feeding every aspect of the work that is happening across the opportunity mission. For example, there is the need for high-quality schools and excellent teaching throughout the whole of the country; the need for young people to have the access to skills wherever they are in the country; the need for our higher education sector to do more to ensure that all those who can benefit from higher education can access it, which will be a key part of the Government’s higher education reforms; and, of course, the need to start early in children’s lives, to ensure that they have access to early years education of the highest quality. It is work on all those areas that will ensure not just that the benefits are felt equally across the country but that we are able to close some of the gaps that the Sutton Trust report identified.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will the Minister look very carefully at social mobility in rural areas and, in particular, the fact that the rural deprivation grant was withdrawn, which has had a major impact in North Yorkshire? I pay tribute to the work in rural areas that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has done as head of the Rural Coalition. He will be greatly missed in this House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness is right that there are particular challenges in rural areas—and, particularly, as she identifies, in terms of the pockets of poverty found there, where perhaps there is no infrastructure of support, that might explain why those children and young people in London are doing comparatively better than people in other parts of the country. She makes a very fair point, and we need to keep a focus on rural poverty and how we ensure that children and young people in rural areas get the opportunities that they deserve.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Child contact centres(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations—(a) require all child contact centres and organisations that offer child contact services to be accredited in accordance with national standards in relation to safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse;(b) require all child contact centre staff and volunteers to undertake mandatory safeguarding and domestic abuse training which must establish processes to centre the voice and experience of the child and parent or carer at all stages of parental involvement;(c) establish mechanisms to support and develop the role of contact centres in multi-agency risk assessment at a local level;(d) set out a system-wide approach to risk assessment and risk management in child contact centres, including the provision of specialist support for parents, carers and children;(e) ensure adequate funding and investment into child contact centres to ensure locally accessible and affordable provision.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I realise I am coming between noble Lords and the Whit Recess at this stage. Before I speak to Amendment 65, I declare my interest as patron of the National Association of Child Contact Centres and celebrate all the work it does. Amendment 65 is a probing amendment. I thank warmly the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Burt of Solihull, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for kindly supporting the purposes and contents of this amendment.
I believe that we benefit greatly from having a good number of and variety of facilities for child contact centres—places where, in the event of a breakdown in a relationship or a marriage, the absent parent or carer can spend time with their children in a safe and comfortable environment. There is a particular issue that we tried to address in a previous Bill, which I will come on to in a moment: effective safeguarding of adults and children, particularly from the risk of domestic abuse or harm.
We benefit greatly from the network of child contact centres, but they are patchy. I pay particular attention to the fact that distances—especially in the north of England, where people have to travel further—increase the costs for parents and carers in reaching contact centres. These contact centres play a crucial role: they enable thousands of parents and carers to have contact with their children safely, and approximately 20,000 children are visited in this way each year. Their facilities are offered both in private law proceedings and by local authorities during public law proceedings.
Amendment 65 is based very much on a report written in June 2023 and drafted from research into child contact centres in England by Cordis Bright, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice. This was required under Section 83(1) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. I pay fulsome tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for moving the amendment so eloquently and vigorously during that Bill’s passage through the House of Lords.
While the amendment was not agreed to by the Government at that time, they committed to building the evidence base on the robustness of current safeguarding policies and practices across contact centres. This amendment reflects that and is based on the results of that research and the recommendations contained in that report. The amendment recognises that there is a high prevalence of referrals to contact centres with a history of domestic abuse and the research in the report that reflected that there was at least one referral with a history of domestic abuse in the 12 months preceding the publication of the report in June 2023. I believe that that justifies the need for training and management of a particularly sensitive nature, as set out in the amendment.
I hope that the amendment speaks for itself. I will not go through each proposal in turn, given the lateness of the hour. I was delighted to attend the briefing hosted by the Minister and led by the Secretary of State for Education, which I think shows the commitment and interest of the Government in this Bill. That was appreciated. The Secretary of State, and indeed the Minister, showed a real interest in this matter. I hope that the Minister sees fit to adopt and accept the provisions as set out in Amendment 65, accept that they are needed and agree to them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I support these very useful proposals, which, as my noble friend has just outlined, would ensure that child contact centres are adequately funded and their staff and volunteers properly trained to guard against domestic abuse.
However, I would add a further recommendation, also made within the final report of the Ministry of Justice on research into safeguarding processes in child contact centres in England. This urges a greater exchange of learning and good practices, to improve consistency across contact centre procedures and policies. Child contact centres themselves can benefit from learning networks, across and beyond their region or local authority, by comparing notes on what is necessary and what works best, including not only the prescriptions of this proposed amendment but the advocacy of certain other proven expedients, whereby the spread of knowledge of their collective efficacy then serves to raise standards, both here and abroad.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, just to add to what has just been said, my understanding is that accreditation depends on the centre having been approved by the national association, and that accreditation lasts, I think, for three years.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
On a point of clarification, I can confirm to my noble friend that what we are asking for, and what we asked for in the earlier amendment, is proper training and management, so that in those cases—perhaps only one a year, but to me that is sufficiently important—of domestic abuse that present to a child contact centre, the volunteers will be properly trained and will be able to manage the situation. It is not a case of inspection and increasing fees; it is giving them the confidence so that they know how to deal with that situation.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her intervention and I very much look forward to discussing this further.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken—my noble friend Lord Dundee, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston—and for the support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in her absence.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, put her finger on it: it is not so much the accreditation. I am very aware of the protocol, which is a great step forward, and I would like the Bill to reflect where we are in that protocol. It would be extremely helpful to have a very short meeting between the authors of the amendment and the Minister, because it is not so much the accreditation as the fact that her predecessor, my noble friend Lord Wolfson, felt that the evidence was not available at the time of the Domestic Abuse Act.
The beauty of the Cordis Bright report is that we now have evidence of the cases involving coercion and other forms of domestic abuse. We do not think that this is necessarily being sufficiently catered for by all the contact centres. We want them all to work to the same standards, whether they are a private or a public facility, and I would like to have the opportunity to take that forward with the Minister.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, indicated, the wording that I have come up with might not be the most sophisticated—so it will be a wonderful opportunity to have that meeting so that we can reach agreement and have that in the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the Bill. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for the briefing they gave us and the opportunity to express, in my case, the concerns I have about the resources and funds available to run the breakfast clubs. I declare my interest as a patron of the National Association of Child Contact Centres.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill setting out child protection and safeguarding and working towards keeping families together as far as possible. I also welcome the kinship care provisions. In my capacity shadowing early years in the other place, I was acutely aware of the role that grandparents and other close family members wished to play but in many instances were not able to do so.
In Committee, I would like to explore the opportunity and the increasing role that could be played by child contact centres and other venues, which offer space for parents to meet and spend time with their children in the event of a family break-up. I urge and encourage the Government to promote and support child contact centres and the vital role they play.
My other main comment at this stage relates to admissions policy—in particular, access to, and the cost of, school transport. Previously, rural counties such as North Yorkshire enjoyed good relations between local education authorities and schools, which is possibly why the take-up of academies was less in those education authorities than others. Recently, however, tensions have been created over the funding of home-to-school transport.
In my view, that is a direct result of the Government cutting the rural services delivery grant. In 2024, that grant provided £110 million to 94 rural authorities to help maintain essential public services. Ending the grant has deprived rural areas of around 40% of funds, so they have 40% less money to spend per head than urban areas. I hope the Government will take the opportunity of the passage of the Bill to urgently address the inequality of funding between rural and urban schools. Previously, that was addressed by policies such as rurality and sparsity of population, but that is no longer the case. We have the opportunity in the Bill to address that.
Finally, I admire hugely the role that academies have played in those areas where they have performed well. I pay tribute to successive Governments and former Secretaries of State, as well as those around the House, who have made these such a success. I hope the Government will listen very carefully to the comments that have been made today and will take them on board when it comes to the passage of this Bill. I hope these issues can be addressed and monitored and that the Bill can be improved, but I do wish it a swift passage through the House.
Covid-19: International Response
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing this debate. I want to focus on two aspects. First, I co-chair the All-Party Water Group. I was particularly interested in my noble friend’s reference to DfID’s joint funding with Unilever of sanitation, hygiene and water resources. Will she assure us that the UK and other nations will look to work more closely with multinational companies, particularly those such as Nestlé. Along with other colleagues from both Houses, I had the privilege a number of years ago to visit the important work that it is doing in Africa—in South Africa, in particular—through EcoLink. This virus will thrive without proper sanitation. A proper supply of water, particularly hot water, to developing countries is especially important in this regard.
I urge my noble friend through her international counterparts, in particular at the summit that we will chair on 4 June, to make sure that we understand the origins of this virus so that we do not have a similar virus or the same virus in the future. If it is traced to dubious animal markets in China, will she use her good offices to ensure that those markets are closed down and will not give rise to a future virus?
Gavi: Covid-19
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we are working closely with the UN agencies and NGOs in refugee camps to ensure that they continue to provide the life-saving SRHR support that they do, and that we provide them with the correct healthcare equipment, which they distribute to keep people safe.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I ask the Minister to use her good offices, in advance of the summit on 4 June, to contact our Commonwealth partners about increasing immunisation against those deadly diseases to which she referred, in spite of the ongoing pandemic.
Baroness Sugg
I reassure my noble friend that we are working closely with the Commonwealth, which has an essential role to play in our global response. Most recently, on 14 May, there was a virtual meeting with all Commonwealth Health Ministers, which was also attended by the director-general of the WHO and representatives of Commonwealth organisations, such as the Commonwealth Foundation and the Commonwealth Medical Association. We will continue to work closely with our Commonwealth partners to ensure that we end this pandemic.
Passports
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord makes a funny point. I do not think that we should deface our passports, just to put that out there, but we can buy covers and put pretty much what we want on them.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Government website and the adverts the Government have put out are confusing? If you have six months’ validity on your passport, can you still travel to the European Union? Would the Government mind extending it so that new passports would be valid for 10 years and six months henceforth?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend makes a good point. Countries such as the US offer travellers leave to go for a fixed period of time so they can use their passport right up to the 10-year limit. It would therefore be rather confusing to make ours valid for 10 and a half years. I know exactly the point she is making, though.
Protestors’ Rights
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble and learned Lord is of course absolutely right—and I wish him a happy birthday.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that it would be much better if INEOS and other such energy companies engaged at the earliest possible stage with local communities, and that it would stand INEOS and those companies in good stead if they would respect the energy law laid down that there will be no fracking in, near, above or below a national park?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Certainly, any large organisation that needs to impact a community would be well advised to engage with it well ahead of time. During such a process, people who protest have to balance their right to protest with their responsibility to uphold the law.
UK Convergence Programme
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a comment and ask a question of my noble friend. The comment—actually, I suppose it too is a question—is: is it not ironic that Britain never wished to join the single currency, yet we are probably the closest aligned to the Maastricht criteria that were set in 1992?
My question for my noble friend is as follows. The Government have been fined substantial sums of money over the years for late payments of the single farm payment and countryside stewardship schemes under the common agricultural policy. Only yesterday, the Rural Payments Agency announced that it is going to make bridging payments for the 2018 basic payment scheme claims and the countryside stewardship claims for 2018 advance payments. As we leave the EU and presumably will no longer face fines for late payments of farm support—in so far as they will continue to exist—what will the mechanism be, if Defra fails to ensure that the RPA makes the payments on time, to ensure that the payments are made in as timely a fashion as possible?
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, as we look forward, it is increasingly difficult to match our view of the future macro economy with the micro economy. I would like to relate this to freedom of movement. Either it is true that a lot of the economy of the south-east is heavily involved in freedom of movement in Europe or it is not. In so far as it is true, everyone is holding their breath at the moment.
I shall give three or four examples of what happens at the moment. A fitter from Barnsley can work freely in Antwerp. A doctor from Guildford is able to work in Paris, her medical qualifications being automatically recognised. Estonian software coders can work in London. Retired teachers from Bromsgrove are able to live in Brittany and receive a pension. An oil engineer from Bergen can establish a business in Aberdeen. Lorry drivers from Wigan can deliver goods across the continent without the need for international driving permits. Injured in Malta, a holidaymaker from Belfast will have their hospital treatment covered by the NHS. Lastly—a subject close to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull—a violinist from London or Leipzig can catch a plane at short notice and work in either the next day.
I find it very difficult to know about the next few months, as we postpone the final decision and think about how freedom-of-movement issues relate to the other agenda. This is a problem of uncertainty. I ask the Minister to flag up the fact that we really need to have a cockshy at some of the key questions that have yet to be decided under the heading of freedom of movement. We know something about the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty and workers’ rights. We even know something about the way in which we can redistribute the macro picture from London to Lancashire, as it were—where I come from originally—so that savings on the EU budget might be redistributed more towards the Midlands, the north of England and so on.
I find it important to get some micro, as well as macro, thinking into these sorts of exercises in the Treasury. Otherwise, we might find that people are working on divergent assumptions about how this freedom of movement thing will work out. I cannot believe what some people in my own party say. It is not the leader’s policy, but there are some people who think we can just wave a magic wand and all the examples I have given will disappear and there will be no problem. Surely that cannot be the case. I think every cup of coffee I drink in London is served by somebody from Estonia. All of this relates to the economy. Will the Minister flag up how we will deal with this, as well as looking at the customs union and so on? That is very important, but it is not the only card game in town.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on moving this statutory instrument, which I welcome. I have a few questions about it.
What has changed since this instrument was considered in the House of Commons is that the Government have published Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019. Paragraphs 41 and 42 flag up a particular case study and the implications for financial services. I shall not rehearse all the arguments, but it concludes that, in,
“the absence of action by EU authorities to mitigate risks in some areas of financial services, there could be some disruption in a no deal scenario”.
When this instrument was considered in Committee in the other place, a number of issues were raised, and I hope that more details may be put to the House this evening.
Page 21 of the impact assessment very helpfully sets out that the importance of the financial services sector to the UK is approximately £4.5 trillion, and it itemises various aspects of how that is broken down:
“Approximately £4.5tn … is currently invested in the UK’s capital markets (both primary and secondary) through pensions funds, insurance policies and individual private savings”.
That is a not inconsiderable sum; it brings many jobs, primarily to London, but also to other financial centres such as Leeds and Edinburgh.
A number of comments were made about the size of the statutory instrument considered in Grand Committee yesterday, where all the regulations were lumped together. The Government cannot win, because putting them all together leads to criticism. However, there has been justified criticism about this mix-and-match, rather piecemeal approach. My noble friend referred to a number of regulations that have already been considered and have a crossover effect on this statutory instrument and others that will follow. If it is confusing for your Lordships’ House, imagine how much more confusing it is for those who have to abide by this rather scatter-gun approach.
The specific questions I would like to put to my noble friend relate to costings. There is a rather interesting table—Table 3 in the impact assessment—which may be in language that I do not understand. It gives a “Summary of anticipated costs by SI” but it is blank; it just has crosses against it. I am not very good with figures, but “X” is not a figure. This was raised by my right honourable friend Nicky Morgan, who chairs the Treasury Select Committee which has spent an inordinate amount of time, quite rightly, scrutinising this in the other place. If your Lordships’ House does not have those figures, how on earth are firms operating in financial services expected to know?
I understand that a figure of £1,900 has been given as a costing for each firm, but I do not know whether that is purely for familiarisation or if it also goes to the cost of complying with the regulation for business. Should we simply multiply that figure by the number of companies operating in the sector? It would be very helpful to understand exactly what the costs will be.
My second question is on the SI’s regulatory reach, particularly the rather formidable array of regulatory authorities that companies will come under, quite rightly, for continuity purposes. That includes the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Bank of England, as my noble friend mentioned, and the Treasury. I have a concern about the duration of the powers. My noble friend very kindly explained that, in one scenario, it will be two years from exit day in the event of no deal. I hope that this statutory instrument and the others we will consider will not be needed, because I fervently hope that we will have a deal and an orderly exit. In other circumstances, the deadline is 12 months, and I am mindful of the fact that my noble friend referred to the loss of passporting rights. We cannot imagine what the cost of that loss will be until we have left the European Union; it took us years to establish passporting rights, and now we are giving them back. I understand that there is a temporary arrangement giving London-based clearing houses licences to carry on doing business with EU-based customers, but that is only valid for 12 months. Already we have identified two different dates with which all the firms operating in the City will have to comply.
My last question relates to the concern that has been expressed by the City of London about the ongoing lack of clarity, shall I say, regarding contract continuity, cross-border data references and uncleared derivatives. It may well be that my noble friend does not have the answer this evening—it may not form part of this statutory instrument covering all the regulations before us this evening in this one instrument—but it is causing concern in the City of London, and I would be very grateful if he could assuage those fears.
Trade Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsMonday 4th February 2019
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade Bill 2017-19 View all Trade Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 127-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (31 Jan 2019)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, in pursuing the aspect of services, and I have a specific question for my noble friend Lord Bates, who I think will be summing up. This debate is not dissimilar to the one that we had on the free movement of professions, and I am mindful of the fact that my noble friend Lady Fairhead has said on a number of occasions that the Bill before the Committee today is all about continuity. I also have regard to what my noble friend Lord Hamilton said—that there has been precious little reciprocity in terms of setting up and establishing services elsewhere in the European Union to date. So that does not fill me with confidence about what the legal position will be going forward.
There are some very helpful pages on the European Commission website about what the position will be as regards professions after 29 March and in the longer term, but there is precious little about establishing companies. This is becoming a matter of increasing urgency because we can see, in particular if we look at financial services, that the issue is not just free movement of people but free movement of services and capital. We have recently seen an increasing exodus of capital and people moving from the City of London to bases in Dublin, Frankfurt and Holland—and even Paris and Copenhagen are pressing for people to go and set up businesses there.
I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister how we are pursuing this on a reciprocal basis. We saw with professions, in the case of lawyers, that we have adopted the statutory instrument and the necessary regulation. What is the legal position of a UK company that wishes to establish itself and offer its services, first in the event of no deal after 29 March, secondly in the event of a deal during the transition phase, and thirdly at the conclusion of the transition period, whether it is as planned or extended? It strikes me that many of us are focusing on businesses already established in the UK and providing services. My concern is how much the ability of those looking to set up and establish themselves will depend on the right of residence, either now or at some future date in what will be a third country after 29 March.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I think that this is a very good amendment and I will come to the substance of it in a second. I just want to make two points by way of introduction. First, here we are at the beginning of February—a new week and a new month—and we are still in an absolutely ludicrous position, presenting an almost unbelievable picture to the world of a country with a Government doing their best to damage their own economy. Every day we have new evidence of this. Today we had the worrying story from Nissan. Many of us who have focused on the mess the Government are in could speak on the subject for hours.
There is another example from the last few days. We say that when we leave the European Union we want to sign trade agreements with those countries which currently have trade agreements with the EU. One of those countries is Japan. Japan has just signed a trade agreement with the EU. At the very best, I suppose, if the Japanese were to give us exactly the same terms—which is unlikely because our bargaining power vis-à-vis Japan is nothing like the power that the EU has—it would take a minimum of five years, and probably nearer 10, to conclude this deal. So the Government are saying that we are walking away from a trade agreement in order to spend a vast amount of time and money and suffer a lot of uncertainty before perhaps, in many years’ time, finally reaching another trade agreement that may not be as good as the one we now have. I put it to the Government: what kind of reason or logic is that? What a way to run a state. What a way to look after not only this generation but future generations of British people and make sure that they have a viable economy on which they can actually base a reasonable standard of living and a reasonable level of public services.
The Government are already under attack in this place, quite rightly, for their delivery of public services. We had a very interesting series of Questions earlier about the health service. The Government are undermining the future ability of the British economy to deliver the wealth we need to maintain our public services at acceptable international levels. This is quite apart from the impact of their policies on individual wealth and prospects for individuals who want to travel or study abroad or benefit from all the other freedoms we will be giving up. It is a very serious matter. The muddle the Government are in about the damage that is being done makes the whole picture even more disgraceful—that is the only word I can use.
I think my noble friend’s amendment is excellent. I agree with everything he said when he introduced it—and that noble Lords on both sides of the House said—about the importance of services. We all know that they are 80% of the British economy. But I have one question. Why has he not put goods in there as well? It seems to me that exactly the same principles apply to goods. I just looked at the amendment, and if you were to add the words “goods” wherever “services” are mentioned, you would not produce any particular anomalies or logical or linguistic problems. I do not know why goods have been left out of this particular picture. As I said, exactly the same principles apply. We want there to be no new barriers—that sums up everything. “Barriers” includes tariffs, quotas and non-tariff barriers, so the ground would be covered quite well by doing that.
My noble friend rather implied that he was putting forward this amendment in order to have a debate on an important subject—which is a very worthy thing to do in this place. Perhaps I have that wrong, but it sounded as though that was what he had in mind, and we are of course having that debate at the moment. However, it seems to me that it would be even better if we got this proposed new clause on to the statute book. We would be doing a very good day’s work for the country if we could manage to do that. Therefore, I ask my noble friend why he came to his decision. I am sure that there must be a very good reason, which perhaps I am being foolish in not anticipating, but I do not understand why we do not include goods.
These debates are becoming extremely unreal. One likes to think that one’s service in Parliament, whether in the Commons or in the Lords, is based on being clear in one’s mind and discussing and working out with colleagues what is the best policy for this country. But we have a Government who are not pursuing the objective of the best policy for this country. We have a Government who are destroying British industry and commerce where they can—so it is a very unreal situation. I do not know how much longer this country can go on in the hands of people who take that attitude when they have in their charge the very considerable, and in my view very important, responsibility of governing the United Kingdom to the benefit of our citizens both of today and of tomorrow.
Lord Bates
I am very happy to give further detail on that in the general update between Committee and Report, but, as the noble Lord knows, the schedules were tabled in December followed by a 90-day consultation period. There can be a variety of perspectives on them before they are finally adopted. I will get an update as to where we are on that before Report.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To clarify, my concern is about British companies establishing their services in what will be a third country, another EU country. I would be happy for my noble friend to write to me.
Lord Bates
I am grateful for that clarification. I shall make sure that that is what is addressed.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to debate whether Clause 9 and Schedule 4 should stand part of the Bill. I just want to raise one or two points that, as my noble friend the Minister will recall, arose during our meeting way back in October or November, for which I was extremely grateful.
I tabled my opposition to the clause and schedule immediately after Second Reading because a number of issues relating to the role and powers of the Trade Remedies Authority arise from the increasing threat from the volume of imported products. I am particularly concerned about bricks, tiles and ceramics due to my interest in, for example, the York brick company, which I had the honour to work with as the local MP. These products emanate from potentially unsustainable sources, often from developing countries, and they are having a negative impact on our domestic production, as seen through the latest retaliatory tariffs from the US and, subsequently, China. I have some general and some specific comments that I wish my noble friend to respond to. I am particularly grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for raising these issues.
Paragraph 12 of the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution sets out the concern that there is a singular lack of detail on the functions and powers of the Trade Remedies Authority and that enormous discretion is given to the Secretary of State in relation to the constitution of this body, the appointment of its members and its operations. In particular, I draw my noble friend’s attention to the committee’s conclusion that,
“in constitutional terms, creating and empowering an important public body in such a manner is inappropriate”.
In connection with Clause 9 and Schedule 4, can my noble friend indicate the length of appointment for members of the Trade Remedies Authority, and do the Government envisage these appointments being renewable and for a similar length of term? If we are inviting people to serve on this body, it is important that they are at least given security of tenure. That goes to the heart of their independence and impartiality, and it would detract somewhat from the ministerial discretion that currently lies with the Secretary of State. Under what conditions would the Government envisage the office of an official serving under the Trade Remedies Authority becoming inappropriate and how could it be removed? It would help the Committee to know that.
In addition, perhaps I may confirm with my noble friend that, in connection with the injury calculation which is the outcome of the Trade Remedies Authority’s conclusions, the regulation will be laid before the House by the affirmative rather than negative procedure.
I am sure that my noble friend does not need me to rehearse the importance of the bricks, tiles and ceramics industry. A total of 2.5 million people overall are employed in the UK manufacturing sector, and this is a very strong part of that industry. As regards ceramics covering tableware and tiles in particular, these have already been affected—or one could say protected—by the two EU trade remedies in place for ceramics. It is important to give a message to the industry this evening that we will create in the Bill similar provisions to those that exist in the European Union at present.
Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the injury calculation will be by affirmative procedure and—as some of the Commons amendments did not cover this point on the economic interest and public interest tests—that the Government will put on record how these tests will be interpreted in court and by the authority going forward? This is purely intended as probing. I obviously wish Clause 9 and Schedule 4 to remain part of the Bill, but I wanted to make some of these general points before we go on to discuss the amendments in the next grouping.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering but for a quite different reason. As I said all those months ago at Second Reading, we need a highly professional team to look after the UK’s trade interests, but I am not convinced that we need a new authority separate from the trade department. I may be out of date, but my recollection is that the work in Brussels is done by the Directorate-General for Trade, not by a special agency—and it seems to get along very well, as we keep hearing.
I might not be able to convince my noble friend the Minister, but I emphasise that the proposed body must be of a very special type. The agency, if we must have it, should be run by people who are independent-minded with Civil Service values, not representatives of any particular stakeholder sector. Such people must be able to stand up to the vested interests who will approach them in the way that they approach Brussels under the current arrangements. I remember lobbying DG Trade on bra quotas in Brussels. I have to say that I was one of many very fluent stakeholders interested in the cargos that were sitting on the sea and not arriving in the shops in Britain.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we are dealing with a clause stand part amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. But she and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, have raised a number of points that actually come in the next group. I wonder if for the convenience of the House we should merge these groups and hear now the speech by my noble friend Lord McNicol, which I have had the privilege of seeing. It covers much the same ground as that covered by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, will probably come in on the ceramics aspects. It might be easier to finish this group together, so I suggest that my noble friend Lord McNicol speaks next.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am grateful to the noble Lord and will be content as long as my noble friend the Minister can answer my specific questions. My only concern is that they do not get lost in the general wash of the next grouping, as they are very specific.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stevenson talked about a speech, but I think he might have overemphasised what we are going to go through. I have pulled together a few comments and was looking to move Amendment 83, but many of the issues overlap with the last two speeches so I will weave in some of the themes.
The group beginning with Amendment 83 deals largely with the setting up and running, as has been touched on, of the Trade Remedies Authority. I will deal with some of the specific amendments and work through them quite quickly because we have another two groups to work through this evening. Many of them are probing amendments to solicit further clarity and details from the Minister on the running and formation of the TRA.
Amendment 83 itself touches on consumers and would add a third subsection to Clause 10(2) not just looking at countries, exporters or producers but adding a further consideration—the consumer. That is a sensible consideration that the TRA should be asked to look at when making any decisions.
Amendment 84 touches on the annual reports that the TRA needs to prepare and sets out a bit more detail about those, looking at any of the guidance, advice or assistance that is given to the Secretary of State. Probably most important is the final part of it regarding the laying of the report in front of Parliament. That is not touched on in detail in the Bill just now, and this adds in that little bit extra.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and others will touch on Amendment 101A, but suffice to say that including and involving UK producers and trade unions is obviously a sensible way forward. It would not tie the hands of the Minister, the chair or the chief executive, but would bring in organisations and individuals who could bring wide and independent knowledge to the formation of the TRA.
Amendment 102 seeks that the chair be vetted by the International Trade Committee of the other place, which is just sensible good practice and happens already with many other bodies of similar stature to the TRA.
Amendment 104 touches on non-renewable terms. The reason for tabling it is that, all too often, individuals who have been appointed to boards have an eye on the reappointment that is coming at the end of their time. Single-term appointments are becoming more common on boards, which means that those individuals can be far sharper and clearer, not tied up in any considerations about the next set of appointments.
Amendment 105 and 106 tie together quite neatly and delve a little more into the detailed knowledge and expertise that we would expect members of the TRA to have. The Bill itself does not go into any specific detail on this so the amendments would put in a little more detail about the individuals and their having knowledge and expertise. God forbid that someone would be appointed to a board for a political reason by the Secretary of State. The amendment would just add a little more depth and weight to those individuals.
Amendment 106 again touches on the criteria, looking at consumers, producers, trade unions and workers being involved with that.
Amendment 107 brings more detail in the clause regarding individuals, going back to the earlier question about how you set what “unfit” is. The Bill itself is quite bland on this; this amendment just brings a little bit more clarity and detail to it. Sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) have been used by many other boards for the ability to exclude individual members if they fall below the expected standard.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and associate myself with all her remarks. I also associate myself with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—I agreed very much with what she had to say.
Amendments 101A and 103B are probing in nature, and I will address a few thoughts to this TRA membership question. In Schedule 4, the TRA is proudly declared to be independent. That is important in trade, because, as one goes through Article 6 of GATT, and the 1994 associated agreement on that article, one sees that the whole idea behind trade remedy processes is that they are fair and are not being used as political weapons by the countries wielding them. That independence is therefore philosophically important to preserve. And yet, in Schedule 4 we find that the Secretary of State will appoint all the non-executives. In addition, the non-executives will always be in the majority, and the Secretary of State can fire all of them. To add icing to the cake, the Secretary of State has the power to issue guidance, and the TRA must “have regard” to it. That does not look to me like a recipe for independence. It would mean that the TRA would begin life with a bad image, and it would be difficult for it to appear a useful, independent tool internationally.
I worry that, if another body had a similar structure which might have political interference—although I do not think we would actually operate it badly—we could be on the wrong end of something. We would not be able to criticise, because it would have the same structure. I join other noble Lords in very much looking forward to what the Minister has to say about the independence of the TRA, and about the points that I and others have made.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 101A and, without rehearsing the points, I entirely endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said in speaking to the amendment. The Minister was kind enough to have a meeting with the team and myself, but I have this awful feeling that she will not support this amendment. I would like to give her a bit of bottle this evening and say why she must adopt the amendments, particularly Amendment 101A. A similar amendment was not carried in the House of Commons but by a very narrow margin and it goes to this point that a number of noble Lords have said this evening—the process must be, and be seen to be, fair in appointing and sustaining members of the TRA, and they must operate independently and impartially. I make this plea to the Minister: the Government must be seen to rein in some of the powers of the Secretary of State, which will be pretty broad if we let the Bill go to its final stages without making these points.
I entirely support what my noble friend Lord Lansley said about why an independent Trade Remedies Authority is required, and I should have declared an interest: I spent a very enjoyable six months in 1978 when I was very young, very keen, and very green, with the EU Commission—DG IV, now known as DG Comp. We did important things, such as read the Financial Times, which was amazing because a number of companies were announcing they were merging without having told the European Commission or the UK home authority, so it is absolutely vital that we have an independent authority such as the Trade Remedies Authority.
To respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we need to give the businesses in this country the knowledge that there will be a remedy which replicates the remedies that are currently available. I entirely support his point that it will not be EU-wide, but we do need some anti-dumping and retaliatory measures at our disposal in this country.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
It will be hard, but I do not think we can let the matter go. That is why Amendment 101A should be on the Marshalled List and not consigned to room 101.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, I wish to make two brief points in this large but important grouping. The first is in response to the point made by the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Fox. When the Secretary of State spoke at Second Reading of this Bill in the other place, he indicated that the Government’s position on the anti-dumping remedies regime would be public long before we considered this Bill. We are, to some extent, debating blind in not knowing what the Government’s proposals are. That is regrettable, so if the Minister can give some clarification, that would be very helpful.
The second point is really stimulated by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley: why are the Government continuing with Schedule 4 as it is currently drafted? As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, the proposal would have been that the Secretary of State would appoint the chair of the TRA and then the chair would appoint the chief executive —that is in Schedule 4(2)(1)(a) and Schedule 4(2)(1)(c). If no chair had been appointed, the Secretary of State would appoint. In the Government’s Statement on 26 October, they announced the appointment of both the chair designate and the chief executive designate at the same time. I do not know how that interacts with this legislation, and on what basis the chief executive designate was appointed. I am not questioning those two individuals. If the intention was to have a truly independent body, the fact that the first chair had been the UK Trade & Investment representative raises some questions. I am not questioning the quality of the appointments. However, I am not sure how the fact that the announcement of both appointments was made on the same day interacts with the Bill, and on what basis both the chair and the chief executive were appointed as designate at the same time. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, either that is not consistent with the Bill, so the Government acted beyond how they said they would act, or perhaps we should just delete this aspect in its entirety for the sake of neatness.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
This is a new procedure, but presumably it is open to an individual Member of your Lordships’ House to intervene to say that they do not agree with the negative procedure and switch it to the affirmative if they made the right case to do so.
Baroness Fairhead
I confess that I am unaware of the protocol in this regard. It is a ways and supplies Act and was deemed by the Speaker to be such, but I will leave that point to those who are more au fait with protocol.
Baroness Fairhead
I am grateful for that clarification, but that is one example that was just plucked out and it has a clear statutory requirement.
On the basis of the information I have given and my commitment to take some of these points back for reflection, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am most grateful to the Minister for her full response. Picking up the mood of the Committee, I think there are a number of issues here on all sides that were reflected in the other place. We do not wish to delay the debate this evening, but we will return to this issue on Report. That is no reflection on my noble friend’s views, but perhaps on the intransigence of her department.