Alcohol Licensing (Coronavirus) (Regulatory Easements) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm. I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has introduced these regulations and welcome that temporary event notices will not be continued.

I will focus on the impact of easement, because different health and crime risks are associated with on-sales and off-sales. There is evidence from the Institute of Alcohol Studies that, while on-sales were not happening because of Covid, sadly, the incidence of alcohol-related violence did not drop. There is a link with off-sales. In licence hearings, responsible authorities and interested parties often present evidence of off-sales being a contributory factor in crime and anti-social behaviour.

There are four licensing objectives, which we need to remember: the prevention of crime and disorder; the protection of public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. There is a concern that making the regulatory easements permanent could undermine local statements of licensing policy. How will responsible authorities and other parties be able to make representations regarding the suitability of the extension and how will any data be collected?

One of the problems with alcohol availability is that it plays a key role in being the biggest risk factor for death, ill health and disability among 15 to 49 year-olds—young people with their lives ahead of them. The density of licensed premises is correlated with alcohol-related deaths, hospital admissions and neighbourhood deprivation. In Scotland, research found that neighbourhoods with the most alcohol outlets had crime rates over four times higher than those with the least. Public health and licensing have to be linked, and there is overwhelming support from directors of public health for them to be included in discussions of licensing. How will they be included, to allow local authorities to make decisions in the overall interest of their community, not only of the landlord of the pub?

How will all this be monitored before the next deadline date? The balance of sales of food and drink in pubs and other places of hospitality and the social interaction that is important for a community to have somewhere to go, meet and interact does not happen with off-sales to anything like the same extent. A lot of lone drinking, which is really harmful in society, is linked to off-sales.

I hope the Government will follow the advice that came from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee:

“The Government intend to use this 18-month extension to formulate and bring forward a long-term policy in the area. When doing so, we”—


that is, the committee—

“expect the Government to provide Parliament with a more robust evidence base, including addressing concerns put forward in the consultation”.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and support him in bringing forward these regulations. I share my noble friend Lord Smith’s ambition that we might eventually have a permanent pavement licence. I declare my interest at the outset as chairman of the original committee on the review of the Licensing Act 2003, of which my noble friends Lord Smith and Lord Hayward were leading lights. I also had the privilege to chair the follow-up inquiry, which was instigated by the Deputy Speaker and the Liaison Committee. I also have the privilege of chairing PASS, the national proof of age standard scheme.

I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister. In its helpful briefing, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee indicates at paragraph 13 that the Government are probably underestimating the benefits to the economy, the hospitality sector and employment of the extension of pavement licensing, which promotes the possibility for businesses to know with certainty that they will be able to have that licence until the end of March 2025, as my noble friend said. Does he accept that the lack of reliable data points to the Government being very conservative and underestimating the potential for higher employment and increased outside socialising?

I hope the regulations will lead to the café culture that lay behind the original philosophy of the 2003 Act. However, conflicts could arise where residential developments are built adjacent to existing premises that have a well-developed business model with outside pavement licensing. Equally, there could be an application for a new business adjacent to a residential area.

In earlier proceedings on the levelling-up Bill, a number of us who served on the licensing review committee brought forward an amendment to introduce the agent of change principle. Might my noble friend open the door to considering developing that principle in his discussions in the department? It would go a long way to resolving some of these difficulties at the earliest possible stage.

With those few remarks, I wish my noble friend every success with these regulations.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, in moving his Amendment 37 and echo many of the remarks made previously on this.

My starting point is this: we now face a potential shortage in many professions, particularly among veterinary surgeons and many categories of medical staff, including doctors, nurses and other clinicians. It therefore seems odd that we have two amendments in this small group on the need for this to be in the Bill. Can my noble friend explain, as he has said many times during the passage of this Bill, at Second Reading and in earlier debates, that the Bill is deemed to be a tool to address potential shortages in the professions, such as veterinary surgeons and medical staff at every level? If that is the case, is it his view—bearing in mind the two probing amendments in this group—that it should perhaps be explicitly stated in the Bill, for the avoidance of doubt?

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all those who have spoken on the amendments in this group, because they are incredibly important. The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, spoke about the dangers of a “whiff” of doubt; I fear that whiff is becoming a smell out there among those whom we desperately need to retain in this country to do the work. I did a different type of straw poll, in west Wales; I just asked how many of the people were immigrants from Europe. We have over 270, and they are holding up the NHS. If they leave, I am afraid we will be in a real pickle. We have a real problem recruiting new people into jobs. We have vacancies not just among front-line clinicians but, as I spoke about on day one, among clinical scientists, where a terrible shortage is affecting our diagnostic processes.

The other problem is that those in Europe do not want to come at the moment because there is an element of doubt, and they feel that they will not be welcomed. Even those who have been well trained, who might come for one or two years and bring some skills over, are not doing that. They are staying away. Although it might sound a bit far-fetched, I think the unfortunate legacy of the Windrush scandal has tainted people’s minds a little bit and tipped them over towards mistrust.

The Minister used the word “trust” earlier today in relation to this Bill. I urge the Government to make it absolutely crystal clear that the qualifications that were previously recognised will remain recognised in perpetuity for the people who hold them unless there is a major change. Something like that might happen; for example, a profession might disappear completely or change so much that ongoing training would obviously be wanted. There is a real need to emphasise that these are valid qualifications and that they are of equal status—and that the people who hold them are viewed as being of equal status, that they are welcome here and that we appreciate the work that they do.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, the amendment I have tabled is a modified and simplified version of the previous amendment regarding child contact centres. I am most grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for meeting the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Burt of Solihull, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and me yesterday. We were hopeful that the Government would want to commit to making regulations rapidly, but, alas, no.

In redrafting I have taken into account the concern expressed by the Minister in the other place that a statutory framework governing local authorities could be costly and bureaucratic. However, I take issue with the statement that the Government have not seen evidence to suggest that the framework used by the National Association of Child Contact Centres—or NACCC, as I will call it for short—and agreed with Cafcass through a memorandum of understanding, is not needed. A lack of evidence being brought forward does not mean that a problem does not exist; it simply means that it is currently going undetected.

I share with the House the words of our previous Prime Minister, the right honourable Theresa May, who said on this issue in the other place:

“May I say to the Minister that from my experience of more than 20 years as a constituency MP, telling me that CAFCASS has an involvement in something does not necessarily fill me with reassurance?”


She went on to say that

“it is important to make sure that those protocols are sufficient and that they are doing the job that needs to be done.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/21; col. 531.]

Unfortunately, because there is no statutory requirement, such monitoring is left to voluntary sector services such as the NACCC.

There are individual cases of concern, but it is not appropriate to go into such details at this stage. Yet the Government’s own recent harm report, which assessed the risk of harm to children and parents in private law children cases, identified that professionals involved in child arrangement cases show a

“lack of understanding of the different forms that domestic abuse takes, and of the ongoing impacts of abuse on children and victim parents”.

The report identified systematic minimisation of abuse and unsightly, unsafe child arrangements in an adversarial system with silo working. Some respondents felt the risk-assessment processes to be inadequate, providing examples of courts bypassing risk assessments altogether and simply ordering contact without assessing the ongoing risk for the non-abusive parent, without considering the risk of potential future harm and without consultation with the child. Surely the Government can see that their own report highlights that staff need specific training on domestic abuse.

That is why I find the Government’s email to me today about my amendment deeply worrying. In it, the Government recognise that individuals can set themselves up outside NACCC-regulated or Ofsted-regulated activities such as childminding. These people are not even eligible to seek such a certificate on criminal record should they wish to demonstrate their commitment to the welfare of those for whom they are providing a contact service. Parents using such contact services have no assurance that these people, who have not been screened by enhanced criminal record disclosure and barring service checks, do not have unspent or spent convictions and cautions. Those of malintent towards children and others who are vulnerable can hide.

The Government said that local authority arrangements safeguard public law cases, and in private law cases they did show that protocols are in place—but, again, there is anecdotal evidence that some parts of the judiciary are unaware off the full content of the judicial protocol and the memorandum of understanding between NACCC and Cafcass. In some communities where there is greatest suspicion of statutory bodies, child contact services may be harder to monitor and are not necessarily focused on a child contact centre. An individual may be complicit in abusive behaviours being perpetrated or have a history of inappropriate behaviour towards children that has gone unnoticed.

My amendment simply gives the Government powers to make regulation as they wish to ensure that all child contact centres and organisations offering child contact services regularly check for employees’, agency workers’ and volunteers’ full compliance with national standards in relation to safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse. At a minimum it is essential so that these vulnerable children are not exposed to further danger. All the personnel involved should have, as a minimum, the enhanced disclosure and barring service checks, and I hope the Government would also require them to have up-to-date specialist domestic violence training to be able to detect and appropriately manage situations of ongoing abuse.

We must not let domestic abuse legislation go through and leave a loophole in our protection of children who are victims. It is consistent with the approach in the Department for Education document Working Together to Safeguard Children and with the welcome given by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Bill, debated last Friday in the House. The Minister said then that

“the provisions in the Bill will ensure that young people are accorded the highest protections to safeguard their physical and psychological health.”—[Official Report, 16/4/21; col. 1579.]

In January 2021, the Government published their tackling child sexual abuse strategy. So, I ask, when will the Government make sure that all those working with children and vulnerable people are subject to enhanced DBS checks? Can the Minister explain why the Government are resistant to providing the highest protections to children who are victims of domestic abuse and potentially open to ongoing abuse or even predatory activities from people with criminal intent who could masquerade as providing child contact services?

Unless I have a firm and comprehensive assurance from the Government that this loophole will be closed, and of when it will be closed, I will seek the opinion of the House, as I believe this House is committed to the welfare of children. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I congratulate her on the work she has done in this regard and on bringing forward a revised amendment at this stage. I declare my interests: I am vice-president of the National Association of Child Contact Centres; I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Child Contact Centres; and I am a non-practising Scottish advocate, so I did have some limited experience of family case law at the Scottish Bar.

I thank the Minister for meeting us on a number of occasions—most recently yesterday. I took great heart from his confirmation, which his official gave us on the call, that the Government indeed have the power to make the regulations we are requesting, so that this amendment would not be needed. I draw attention to the letter sent by email today following the meeting yesterday, which states:

“At the meeting yesterday I indicated that my officials would look at the DBS regulations, to assess whether these could be amended to apply to individuals setting up contact centres and services, outside of the NACCC accredited services, in order to provide a level of safeguarding for both children and parents.”


I would like to know why the Minister has drawn back from what I understood was a clear commitment to make these regulations.

I remind the Minister that this is my second attempt at supporting this amendment. I had a Private Member’s Bill some two Parliaments ago as a relatively new Member of this House on this precise point. I welcome the fact that the Minister and others spoke in previous stages in support of this amendment, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Our starting point is simply, as the Minister explained, that we want to ensure that in a family breakdown, the break-up of a marriage or any other relationship, the absent parent—normally the father, but possibly the mother—will continue to have contact with the child. It is extremely important for both the family and society that that is the case. I care passionately about families, and family law is at the heart of British society.

I will put a point to the Minister today that he has not answered to my satisfaction. GOV.UK states:

“You will need to have an enhanced check with barred lists from the Disclosure and Barring Service, if you want to look after children for a living … Who needs to be checked …You may need to go through a DBS check if you work directly with children or run the childcare organisation, for example as a … childminder … childminding assistant … nanny … playgroup owner … children’s home director”.


So I ask my noble friend a very simple, direct and straight question: why are those either working at child contact centres or offering services of contact being put in a less safe situation in relation to the children they are going to be dealing with than every other person working with children?

Let me remind the House that the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, has a Private Member’s Bill going through this House at the moment looking to close a similar loophole in the provision of education to children aged between 16 and 19, and I support that Bill. That loophole shows that safeguarding should extend to 16 to 19 year-olds, and the Government are seeking to close that loophole for a very good reason: nobody wants a terrible incident to happen, leading to a potential court case and huge trauma for all concerned, not least the Government, whose responsibility it is to protect 16 to 19 year-olds in education or enjoying educational services in any setting. So for what reason, as we seek to close that loophole for 16 to 19 year-olds, is a child or family in this case not enjoying the same level of protection as they do with every other category of a person providing a service?

I would like to humbly correct the Minister on one point. He stated that those supporting the amendment were claiming that there are large numbers of unaccredited centres at risk of domestic abuse. That has never been our claim. Our claim is that this small category is unacceptable because it is putting children at risk, and they are the most vulnerable in society. I would just like to correct my noble friend on that single point.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm. The commission received evidence from many who had first-hand experience of the relationship between alcohol and domestic abuse. As many noble Lords pointed out in Committee, there is a strong, if complex, relationship between alcohol and domestic abuse. The figure often quoted is that up to half of perpetrators have been drinking when an assault takes place. Alcohol also tends to make violence more serious, doubling the risk of severe violence and rape. Tragically, substance use is a factor in over half of intimate-partner homicides.

It is not only perpetrators who drink. Women who have experienced extensive physical and sexual violence are more likely to use alcohol or drugs harmfully than women who have not. They might do so in an attempt to self-medicate and cope with their experiences, or drink with their partner as a form of bonding. Substances may be part of the abuse itself, and perpetrators may use alcohol to control victims. ONS figures show that around 10% of those accessing domestic violence support services have an alcohol use need, many times higher than the rate for the general population. Around 6% have a drug use need and around 40% a mental health problem. Given the difficulties people with additional needs have in accessing domestic violence support, these figures may well underestimate the scale of the problem.

Indeed, survivors may have been forced to choose which of their needs they are able to get help with. Alcohol treatment is desperately underfunded, and there simply are not enough alcohol treatment services set up to help domestic abuse survivors. For example, female survivors of male violence may not feel able to receive treatment in a mixed space; yet less than half of local authorities in England and Wales have provision for women-only substance use services. Women may also find that their drinking can prevent them accessing a safe space, with some turned away from refuges due to drinking or drug use. Only about one-quarter of refuges in London, when asked the question, stated that they “always” or “often” accept women who use alcohol or other drugs.

Following a very constructive and productive meeting with the Minister last week, she has written reassuring me that this is a priority for the Government. She has agreed to address the issue of alcohol and domestic abuse in statutory guidance and in the domestic abuse strategy, which will set out a comprehensive framework for responding to and supporting victims. I welcome the Minister’s recognition of the seriousness of the problem and her attempts to resolve it. In her letter, she also set out the opportunities created by the new integrated care systems to allow for greater joined-up working between services to better support victims with the alcohol treatment they so often need urgently.

This urgency has increased during the Covid-19 pandemic, making it more important than ever for us to act now. During the first lockdown, visits to the UK’s national domestic abuse website surged by 950% by the end of May. NSPCC Wales reported average referrals for parental substance use to police and agencies were 72% higher in the 10 months to February 2021 than in the first three months of 2020. These figures are frightening, but they go only a small way to illustrate to your Lordships the scale of what people are experiencing right now. I am grateful to the Minister for her letter to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, where she recognised the need for much better sobriety schemes, which we greatly appreciate, but I remind the House of the size of the problems.

I shall finish by sharing the words of a 15 year-old boy who contacted Childline. Speaking of his own experience, he said:

“I’m really scared of my dad, especially when he’s been drinking. Sometimes he gets really angry and throws things at my mum. It’s been getting worse since the coronavirus and I worry a lot. I have no idea what to do as I can’t escape because of the lockdown.”


I hope, therefore, that I will get an even warmer reception for this amendment than I received in the letter from the Minister, and I reserve my ability to divide the House on this very important issue pending the response I get. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I want to take a moment to support the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in her Amendment 23. I pay tribute to all her work in this field and to the other signatories to the amendment. I want to single out the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, with whom I had the privilege of serving on the ad hoc committee on the Licensing Act 2003.

Without any shadow of a doubt, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, set out, domestic abuse is, unfortunately, aggravated and fuelled by alcohol and drug abuse. It behoves all of us to try to limit the damage done in these circumstances. I therefore hope that my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on the modest change to the wording of the Bill that is proposed here.

I know that Scotland has taken a lead, particularly on the unit pricing of alcohol. I initially had reservations about that until I heard the evidence we took on the ad hoc committee. It was always understood, and we concluded that we would press them, that the Government would come forward with unit pricing in Scotland. I think my noble friend the Minister would agree that it has led to a significant reduction in alcohol abuse.

With those few words, I lend Amendment 23 my support, and ask my noble friend to look favourably on the modest additional wording it proposes.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 23rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly embrace my noble friend—in a metaphorical sense, he will be pleased to know—for adopting in Amendment 14 and others what was in my amendment in Committee, which is why I have appended my name to his Amendment 14. I congratulate him on moving in this regard and listening to the concerns expressed in this House so forcefully by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and as drafted for me and briefed to me by the Law Society of Scotland.

By the same token, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the co-signers of Amendment 15 and others in this group not to press them. I would be interested to know the provenance of, and thinking behind, Amendment 15 and the others, because I have not picked up on any move, certainly from the Scottish Government and Parliament, to seek consent in this regard. I would be interested to know why the noble Baroness is going to press this when the Government have gone so far to meet the concerns expressed by the Law Society of Scotland and others in Committee. If we do not welcome and congratulate the Government and this Minister when they move as far as they have, it puts down a poor marker for future amendments to this Bill and others on these matters.

My noble friend has said that Amendments 18, 32 and 43 in his view are unnecessary. I think that Amendment 18 is paralleled by and complementary to his own amendment—government Amendment 19. I think that Amendment 32 is also paralleled by his Amendment 36 and his Amendment 35, which I have also signed. Amendment 43, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, I think is also complemented and paralleled by his Amendment 45, for which I am extremely grateful; I would like to pay tribute handsomely to my noble friend for moving in this regard.

I do have a hesitation as to why my noble friend has not accepted Amendments 26 and 28 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. They are actually seeking to consult in much the same way as an earlier clause that my noble friend has moved and agreed—which is extremely welcome—but, if my understanding is correct, he has not agreed to move in regard to Clause 12 to consult with the devolved Administrations before preparing guidance under Clause 12. I may be mistaken—in which case, I would be grateful if my noble friend would correct me.

I would also like to warmly welcome government Amendment 29. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the spirit of inclusion shown by my noble friend and the Government on this occasion to commit to obliging the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the use of Part 1 amendment powers and, in that regard, his commitment to consult the devolved Administrations. I wish to warmly commend his movement in that regard.

I would perhaps like to nudge my noble friend also to accept Amendments 26 and 28 as being on the same page as his own thinking. I repeat that I do hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the other co-signers of Amendment 15 and others will take this opportunity to withdraw or not move their amendments, given that the Government have moved as far as they have on this consultation, to which they are now committed. So I do not beg to move.

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

My Lords, I also welcome the Government’s amendments in this group and the speech of the Minister. If I may, I will try to answer the concern just expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I think it is fair to say that some of us fear that the Government might be tempted to try to overturn the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in the other place, and so we would like the House to fully consider all the amendments in this group that have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and myself.

I would like to speak in favour of Amendments 15, 20, 27, 34 and 46. All of these amendments are based on the same principle: that, when issuing guidance as to the implementation of market access principles, or when seeking to extend or further limit the exceptions to the application of the market access principles, the Government must obtain the consent of the devolved Governments to doing so.

However, we are sensitive to the nervousness of the Government and wish to be helpful by providing clear reassurance in statute of coupling a consent requirement with a limited-time proviso. This states that, should consent not be forthcoming from one or more devolved Governments within a month, the Government may proceed to make the changes or issue the guidance, subject only to the need to make a statement to Parliament as to why this is necessary.

This is not an onerous requirement, and I know that what we have proposed is less than the unqualified requirement for consent that the devolved Governments in both Wales and Scotland would have preferred. But this amendment is a healthy, open compromise which can comprehensively allay the fears of the Government Front Bench as to the risk of the process somehow grinding to a halt should a Scottish or Welsh Minister try to delay. Indeed, our approach, advocated in the slightly different context of appointments to the office for the internal market by the Welsh Government, has been adopted by the Minister in government Amendments 56 and 57, so it seems difficult to see how the Government could object to this.

I therefore hope that the Minister will think again and accept these helpful amendments, rather than put us in a situation where we need to go to a vote.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I shall speak to my own amendments but I have a question following on from what they have both said which relates to an earlier debate, particularly when in summing up the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, linked Clause 39 of the Agriculture Bill to the clause relating to the movement and mutual recognition of goods.

Clause 39 of the Agriculture Bill relates to marketing standards, and I have a specific question to put to my noble friend the Minister that I hope he will address head on in view of the remarks made by both the previous speakers. If, in the course of events in the new internal market arrangements under this Bill, the Food Standards Agency with responsibility for England came out with different provisions to Food Standards Scotland, and in the event that the latter adopted different rules for, especially, animal products, food and animal feed, how would that impact on the free movement of goods? Could it eventually mean that there was no longer any mutual recognition, and Scottish goods could not pass into England or other parts of the United Kingdom in those circumstances? Would the same apply if the Food Standards Agency in England produced different rules to other parts of the United Kingdom? It is extremely important that we understand those impacts.

I will now speak briefly to my Amendments 20, 22, 26 and 45. I am extremely grateful for the extensive briefing I have obtained from the Law Society of Scotland and for its drafting of these amendments, which are probing in nature but address some key issues. Amendment 20 is a probing amendment to seek the Government’s interpretation of Clause 4(2)(b). Clause 4 purports to mean that certain regulatory divergences that currently exist will continue to be able to be enforced against goods produced in or imported into other parts of the United Kingdom and would not be able to be so enforced were they introduced after the mutual recognition principle comes into force. However, the Law Society of Scotland has noticed that, in order for a statutory requirement in a part of the United Kingdom not to be a relevant requirement for the purposes of mutual recognition, the conditions in subsection (2) must be met.

There are two conditions in subsection (2), and my comments will relate specifically to subsection (2)(b), which provides:

“The conditions are that, on the relevant day … there was no corresponding requirement in force in each of the other three parts of the United Kingdom.”


What provisions do the Government imagine will be captured by the current terms of Clause 4? For example, food and feed law is mainly derived from EU law, and, in terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this body of law is retained EU law, implemented throughout the UK. Are Scottish food and feed regulations, and, by implication, all retained EU law, excluded from the application of the mutual recognition principle because there are corresponding requirements implementing the same EU obligation, albeit in slightly different terms, to fit into the relevant law in each of the other parts of the United Kingdom? How does the mutual recognition principle relate to common frameworks? My Amendment 22 simply has a consequential effect, following on from the deletion of Clause 4(2)(b), making the necessary changes there.

Amendment 26 probes the meaning of Clause 5(3), regarding the effect of a statutory requirement under Clause 6. It appears that Clause 5(3) would render a statutory provision in devolved legislation “of no effect”. This lacks clarity. Am I right in thinking that the statutory requirement is valid? Is it valid but cannot be enforced? Is it voidable? It is also not clear regarding the application, if any, of Clause 5(3) if the statutory provision is in an Act of Parliament that applies to England only. I would be grateful if the Minister would take this opportunity to clarify this.

The amendment applies the statutory language that exists in Section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998 to Clause 5(3) in an effort to bring clarity to the point. Section 29(1) provides:

“An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament.”


It is not the intention of this amendment to amend the Scotland Act 1998 but rather to say that that Act provides, in my view, much clearer language than the Bill. These statutory provisions could be challenged by private parties and will presumably also be a basis for challenging devolved legislation. Assuming the inability to modify the Bill under Clause 51, it will in all cases prohibit legislation that is contrary to its principles. Presumably that is the intention, but it is not the clearest way that that outcome could have been achieved, so I am grateful for this opportunity to seek clarification.

Finally, Amendment 45 is a probing amendment, looking to understand a phrase the Government have used: “substantive change”. What do they interpret as substantive change in connection with changes to statutory requirements? I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to these probing amendments.

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

My Lords, Amendment 21 in my name is effectively consequential on the changes I have already proposed to ensure that the market access principles are only applied once regulations have been brought forward, relating to a specific type of goods, when it has proved impossible to reach agreement through the common frameworks process.

The Bill proposes that legislation already in place at the time Part 1 of the Bill comes into force cannot be caught by the market access principles—at least where the restrictions imposed by that legislation are not ones that exist across the United Kingdom. This amendment would simply apply that same principle in the context of a process whereby the market access principles could only be switched on by regulations approved by both Houses, meaning that restrictions to the exercise of devolved powers would only be switched on in specific areas where the Government have made regulations to that effect. In other words, the rules on non-discrimination would apply only where a devolved legislature sought to introduce new statutory requirements in the particular area covered by the regulations. This seems to be both logical and respectful of devolved competencies.

I also record my support for other amendments in this group, notably Amendments 7 and 8, which seek to limit the mutual recognition principle in ways that seem thoroughly appropriate, and Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. This last amendment touches on an important point and would, on its own, if adopted, broaden the scope of the exemption for prior legislation. It seems to me—and please correct me if my understanding is wrong—that this would address one of my major concerns, which is that the legislation seeks to prevent regulation that increases standards but does not impede regulation that lowers them.

The Bill as currently constructed would mean that, if this Parliament decided to legislate in England for the current ban on the use of hormones in beef cattle to be removed, for example, then the fact that a ban had previously existed in Wales and Scotland could not be invoked to prevent the sale of such beef in those nations. This is because the condition in Clause 4(2)(b) would require the Welsh and Scottish Governments to demonstrate that a “corresponding requirement” had not previously existed in England.

In a letter from the Minister that I received just as we started this debate, he stresses, if I have understood it correctly, that a potential for harmful regulatory divergence did not exist during our membership of the EU, but, at the end of the transition period, that will change and create a significant risk of harmful divergence between the four nations. He goes on to write that the Government have consulted widely on the proposals and have had overwhelming support from businesses and industry organisations on the steps they have outlined to protect our internal market from discriminatory behaviours.

I would be most grateful if the Minister could kindly tell us, either today or in a letter following today’s debate, details of the results of that consultation because I think it is important that those of us speaking to amendments really understand the background of the results that came in. I will be most interested in the Minister’s reply to all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 20.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 8th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I support Amendments 47 and 98, to which I have appended my name, in particular. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for the clarity with which he introduced his amendment in this small group.

When we come to a later group, I will address the issue of what is lacking and make the case for why we need an international trade commission, but I will not rehearse those arguments now. Instead, in support of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, let me say that, under the current situation of CRaG and the 21 days, we will be in a substantially worse position than the one in which we have found ourselves in the past. Having been an MEP for some 10 years, I was in a position to look in detail at some of the agreements that were negotiated by the European Union on Britain’s behalf. I am sorry to put my noble friend the Minister in this position but it seems extraordinary that we will put ourselves in a weaker position than the one we enjoyed as part of the European Union when we are meant to be strengthening our position by negotiating these deals in our own right. I believe that this area has to be addressed.

Amendment 47 sets out the case for a post-ratification report and a timeframe within which it should be done. I think this is particularly important because I have looked at some of the figures that have been made available to us by both the Library of the House of Lords—I almost said “Library of the House of Commons”—and individual organisations such as the Food and Drink Federation. Food and drink is our greatest export, followed by—I am trying to think what it is called. In all three major industries, including cars and whatever we discussed in Committee yesterday—which will come back to me in a moment—all our exports to EU countries and overall have gone down substantially because of Covid.

The one that bucked the trend, interestingly, was with Norway. I understand informally from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that the rollover agreement has now been signed. That is good to know. Apparently, our exports to Norway went up incrementally in the last year, by some 45%. I would be interested to know what caused that. The situation is that, apart from Norway, we have suffered substantial falls in our exports. I will not repeat at length what was discussed earlier but, because of tariffs imposed on Scotch whisky, we have had a big hit on sales of Scotch whisky to the US. Therefore, I believe there is a strong argument for post-ratification support, as set out in Amendment 47. I would like a good reason from the Minister as to why that should not be the case. It goes to the heart of the case that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is making for the whole group of amendments on why we need to strengthen parliamentary approval of agreements and initial scrutiny of them before they come into effect.

Amendment 98 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I have appended my name. It proposes that powers in the Bill would not come into effect without a parliamentary vote on either anEU-UK free trade agreement or ending the transition period with no deal. I realise that we are looking at continuity agreements and I cannot see why that should not be the case with continuity agreements as well. He neatly sets out why there should be further parliamentary scrutiny and a vote before a future trade agreement comes into effect.

I will look at one rollover agreement, on which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, secured a separate debate in the last Parliament, and that was the agreement with the Faroe Islands. We export the small amount of £98 million-worth of goods to the Faroe Islands, but we import £200 million-worth, mostly of fish. That is again damaging, not just to the Scottish economy but to the rest of the UK where fish is produced. So there are a number of reasons why we as parliamentarians need to keep an eye on the trade flow with these countries. If we are not given the chance to—and I honestly do not believe that the 21 days of the CRaG procedure is enough—in my view, the Minister should come up with a very good reason why there should be less parliamentary approval than that which we enjoyed in the past. I declare an interest, in that regard, as a former MEP.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for so eloquently laying out the issues. In some ways, I hesitate to come in after their vast experience. But, as so often at this stage of proceedings, my purpose in supporting this amendment is not so much in the expectation that every word of it will be enacted—as we are now in Committee—but to make a very important point that I hope the Government will reflect on and address.

We are one-fifth of the way through this 21st century, and on the eve of an era where, outside the EU, we will be more reliant than ever on negotiating trade agreements. Trade policy is simply too important to be determined solely by Ministers wrapping themselves in some cloak of royal prerogative. As the Supreme Court reminded us, prerogative powers should not be used to curtail the rights of Parliament, and in particular the elected House, to hold the Government to account.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I remind noble Lords to switch off devices while we are in Grand Committee. It is quite disturbing and disruptive.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for introducing this group of amendments. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, on beating me to the starting post. I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Fairhead on this amendment, which had cross-party support as an amendment to the Trade Bill 2019 in the previous Parliament, and for her patience in meeting all of us who were involved in its drafting. She was very kind in taking different parts of the various groups of amendments, and it is bewildering to see that it is no longer part of this Bill.

I pay tribute also to those campaigns. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to the Daily Mail. I add the Farmers Guardian and, closer to home, the Yorkshire Post. Yorkshire has a massive food cluster, in terms of farmers and food producers and processors, so this is a subject that is very close to their heart. The background to Amendment 23, as far as I can see—and also Amendments 24 and 25, which I shall come on to in a moment—is that it should reflect the work and the debates and the amendments on the Agriculture Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, set out. It also reflects the manifesto commitment, with which the Minister will be even more familiar, that we want to have high environmental standards and animal welfare going forward in our rollover agreements and in future agreements as well.

I go further and say that we have to have fair competition and a level playing field. I would like to have an assurance today from the Minister that he expects that imported food products will meet the same standards and that it is not the intention of the Government to allow in food products which will actually undercut our own producers, and then to proceed to place a tariff on them, with a label on the finished product to say that that is what it is. “This is chlorinated chicken, it does not meet our animal welfare standards, but it is safe to eat if that is what you want to eat.”

This takes us back to the very sorry situation we found ourselves in under—dare I say it—a previous Conservative Government, which I supported, where we unilaterally imposed a ban on sow stalls and tethers but allowed producers to produce pork with sow stalls and tethers in Denmark, Poland and other countries and then allowed those imports to be introduced onto our supermarket shelves. The consumer did not understand the farm tractor label and went on to buy on price, and the result was that more than 50% of our pig producers went out of production almost overnight. Surely, that cannot be the intention of the Government in this case. I make a plea to my noble friend to reinstate the original clause by adopting the amendment, either today or on Report. That is what most of us would like to see.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for lending their support to Amendment 24. I would like to add food safety to this for the reasons that we discussed at the time with my noble friend Lady Fairhead, and which I repeat now. The case has been strengthened by the reference made by my noble friend Lord Gardiner when summing up the Second and Third Readings of the Agriculture Bill. He referred to the multiple protections that the Government have put in place, not least the role of the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland to which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred. Keeping food safety in Amendment 23 would protect that.

On Amendment 25, I again thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and my almost noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for supporting this amendment. I would like to put my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s mind at rest because when we have these debates he frequently says that he would like an assurance from the Minister that whatever we negotiate will be WTO-compliant. If he looks at the World Trade Organization pages, he will see:

“Environmental requirements can impede trade and even be used as an excuse for protectionism. The answer is not to weaken environmental standards, but to set appropriate standards and enable exporters to meet them.”


That is what we are trying to do here. We want to ensure that we make provision through any future regulations under the Bill—or any future trade agreement —that those regulations will not have the effect of lowering animal health, hygiene or welfare standards, the protection of the environment, food safety, hygiene, traceability or human and workers’ rights below EU or UK standards. The World Trade Organization goes on to say that we should be looking to have higher standards that could be met by all those wishing to participate in a particular free trade area agreement.

I will conclude by drawing my noble friend’s attention to the Dimbleby report that he was kind enough to read over the weekend. The executive summary on page 7 of National Food Strategy Part One states:

“Grasping the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to decide what kind of trading nation we want to be. The essence of sovereignty is freedom—including the freedom to uphold our own values and principles within the global marketplace. In negotiating our new trade deals, the Government must protect the high environmental and animal welfare standards of which our country is justly proud. It should also have the confidence to subject any prospective deals to independent scrutiny: a standard process in mature trading nations such as the United States, Australia, and Canada. If we put the right mechanisms in place, we can ensure high food standards, protect the environment and be a champion of free trade.”


I would like an assurance from the Minister today that that is what he intends and to put at rest the minds of farmers such as Mrs Joan Riddell who has written to me from Banbury in Oxford. She wants an assurance that the high standards of our farmers in this country will be met. Will my noble friend say whether that is what we intend? What is the status of the Dimbleby report? Sadly, the Government will not have responded to it before we have passed the Agriculture Bill or the Trade Bill here or in the other place. Presumably, if the Government have asked Henry Dimbleby to report on this matter, they intend to follow his advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

My Lords, I have had a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My noble friend Lord Grimstone has just confirmed my worst fears about this interchange of terminology between food safety and food standards. We owe the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, a great debt of gratitude because he clearly stated what Heather Hancock, as chair of the Food Standards Agency, has said on numerous occasions: that our current food safety standards can be changed overnight by the passing of a regulation—that is, a statutory instrument. I think he said that that could happen via the negative procedure, not even the full affirmative procedure.

There we have it. That is the problem. We are not even speaking the same language, which concerns me greatly. On food standards, whatever chemical you want to rinse with—such as chlorine—or hormone you want to inject your beef with, it is not something that the consumers of this country want to consume. I just wish that my noble friend Lord Grimstone would accept that this goes to the heart of our concern, reflected in this group of amendments and the other amendments that we will come on to when we discuss the International Trade Commission and what the future criteria will be.

It is not that the chicken or beef might be unsafe to eat; it is that the product does not meet the high standards of production that our farmers must meet. It will therefore undercut our farmers, who could potentially be put out of business. That is precisely what happened under a previous Conservative Government in the mid-1990s; as a result, 50% of pig producers—who were largely in north and east Yorkshire, I might add—went out of business. That is a position to which I do not want to return. Will my noble friend accept that this terminology is extremely important and that what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said in regard to the regulation being amended literally by the sweep of a pen is what goes to the heart of this argument?

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st October 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with this group of amendments, and Amendment 51 in particular. I will make a very brief contribution. In summing up the last debate, my noble friend Lord Younger very helpfully shared with us the negotiating mandate the Government have achieved with the United States in particular. I think it would put our minds at rest if, in summing up this small group of amendments, my noble friend could repeat the contents of that negotiating mandate, particularly as regards any possible negotiating mandate as regards the health service. I know we have had repeated assurances that that is the case, but I think it would be very helpful to know what actually is covered in the negotiating mandate and whether there is any window at all for an aggressive approach to be made by the United States in this regard.

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

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lord Patel have very eloquently spoken to these amendments. They are incredibly important, and I strongly support them. We have to protect the NHS and publicly funded healthcare services across the UK from any control from outside the UK. To do otherwise would cost us dearly and would, in the end, prevent us looking after our own, because we would be told what to do from outside.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has shown, all aspects of the NHS and social care must be protected from trade agreements at every level. We need to maintain the option of reversing the privatisation which has already occurred, if that is what we decide to do in the future, and we must be free to create collaborative health and social care. Trade agreements must not drive us into some kind of locked-in increased privatisation of the NHS or, indeed, force any such change in the devolved nations. The health and social care sectors must be excluded from the scope of all future trade agreements, otherwise we will find that the NHS is irretrievably undermined.

On maintaining quality, we are world leaders in pharmaceutical research and development, yet access does not always match innovation. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has pointed out that in the first year of a new medicine being launched, only one-fifth of eligible patients in the UK get access compared to those in France and Germany. Our ability to regulate and maintain the quality and safety of medicines and medical devices must not be undermined by some small sub-paragraph in a trade agreement that slips by almost unnoticed.

In addition, medicines and medical devices must remain affordable in the UK. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society highlighted the huge extra cost to the NHS after Essential Pharma disclosed plans to cease production of Priadel, its cheapest lithium carbonate product, due to restrictions on permitted pricing. The suggested alternatives for bipolar disorder owned by the same company can cost at least 10 times as much.

So this is not only about who runs the NHS today. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, our NHS databases are extremely valuable. They are a resource for our future research and development and, from that, for our future economic development. If we lose them through a trade agreement, we will irretrievably damage our future economic development.

I now turn briefly to Amendment 75, which ensures that the Government can uphold the right of citizens to access medicines under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as part of the right to the highest attainable standard of healthcare. Modern free trade agreements are used increasingly as vehicles to further pharmaceutical industry interests ahead of public health needs. They increasingly include clauses on intellectual property, pharmaceutical regulatory processes and investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms that affect price and decrease access to medicines. To secure affordable access to medicines, the Government must be able to grant compulsory licences, deal with exhausted intellectual property rights, strengthen patentability criteria and determine what constitutes a national emergency, as laid out in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. The Covid pandemic has shown why we must always be able to make technologies available quickly, widely and at the lowest cost. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, generics are not always cheaper in a complex market that can easily be manipulated.

Our NHS database is extremely valuable, and its value is increasing. It cannot be thrown away. There are times when short-term industry profits are not good for patients and delay access to affordable medicines and health technologies. These amendments aim to secure our healthcare for the future. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that informed patient consent requires a patient to know whether data is held, what it is used for and how it can be manipulated, even when it is anonymised. They would rightly be outraged if that data is allowed to put profits in the pockets of other countries, knowing that it will never be ploughed back into the NHS—certainly not at 100%.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. He is not responding so we will move to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who, as ever, spoke so entertainingly.

I shall speak to Amendment 92A, and I echo many of the sentiments expressed by its authors. This is a very vexed area. I recall only too well that when I was MP for what was then the Vale of York, Shepherds Purse Cheeses produced feta cheese that was clearly produced not in “feta land”—Greece—but in North Yorkshire. I think the case went as far as the European Court of Justice, and the upshot was that the company had no protection and had to abide by the EU rules. Imaginatively, the company changed the name of the cheese to Yorkshire fettle, which is a best seller and has won a number of awards. I am delighted that it continues to have success.

The serious point here is that, according to figures from the Food and Drink Federation, the three greatest exports from the UK are Scotch whisky, then Scottish salmon and, lower down the list, chocolates. So this is immensely important to Scotland, but also to North Yorkshire and the whole Yorkshire region. I pay tribute to the marketing facility that was originally Yorkshire Pantry but has been renamed Deliciously Yorkshire. Because of the food cluster in and around North Yorkshire—in fact, in the whole Yorkshire region—the protected geographical indication scheme is extremely important to them. I hope my noble friend will pull something out of the hat to make sure that if we are to have a UK geographical indication scheme, it will be recognised across the EU and the EEA at the very least.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I have received a request from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to ask a short question.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I ask my noble friend where the business plan that he says will be published in the autumn will be published. I am slightly concerned that “in the autumn” could be interpreted as 21 December, and that the plan could come out after both Houses have risen. Having served on the EFRA Committee for a number of years and looked very closely at the budgets, I am not quite sure which particular spending would be interrupted by Amendment 30.