Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, I serve on the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee. We have met with a level of frustration about this Bill and the delay in some of those common frameworks coming forward. They are an important element of devolution and provide for that element of divergence.

I support Amendment 29. I have other amendments in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in this group but, in relation to Amendment 29 and the issue of sunsetting, could the Minister indicate how the Government will protect the new Windsor agreement, which underpins devolution in Northern Ireland, from 1 January 2024, given the revocation of retained EU law from that date?

The purpose of Amendment 147 and, in particular, Amendment 33 is to ensure that Northern Ireland is removed from inclusion in this Bill—in fact, Amendment 147 states that—due to the influence and impact of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, because I believe that the Windsor agreement of this week is simply an implementation plan of the protocol with mitigations. In this regard, I refer to Article 2 as well as to environmental considerations. Amendment 33 would prevent the automatic revocation or sunsetting of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained EU legislation that relates to human rights, equality and environmental protections as they affect Northern Ireland. This would include all such legislation that falls within the scope of Article 2 of the protocol.

I and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, have spoken to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which are tasked with statutory oversight of the UK Government’s commitment under Article 2 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to ensure no diminution of certain equality and human rights protections in Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit. These equality and human rights protections relate back to the Good Friday agreement of 10 April 1998. Quite rightly—this is the purpose of these amendments—both commissions are concerned that this commitment has not been properly considered in the development of the Bill and that the proposed sunsetting of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation risks a breach of Article 2 unless all relevant legislation is identified and preserved by the set deadlines.

This pressure is exacerbated by the absence of an Executive in Northern Ireland at the moment. Could the Minister provide us with some detail about any work that has been ongoing in relation to that? Both commissions believe that the Bill should be amended to include a clause confirming that the provisions of the Bill are without prejudice to Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Amendment 142 in our names, which is in another group, refers to this. Both commissions have welcomed assurances by the UK Government of their commitment to Article 2 and their acknowledgment that the commitment is non-controversial. However, a number of concerns have been identified.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. If cannot respond today, maybe he could come back to me in writing. Could he set out the steps that will be put in place to mitigate the risk of inadvertent failure on the part of the Government or devolved authorities to preserve or restate all relevant EU-derived subordinate legislation in Northern Ireland and retained EU legislation within the scope of Article 2, within the set deadlines in the Bill, in the absence of the Bill being amended to include measures that protect against this risk? Would the Minister also set out in detail—I would be grateful if he could do so in writing—what consideration was given to ensuring compliance with Article 2 in the development of the Bill, including in the identification of the specified legislation?

In relation to Amendment 142, there is a concern that the environment will not be properly protected. There is therefore a need for Northern Ireland to be removed from this. In an area of political instability, where the Executive and Assembly are currently not operating, we need full measures within the legislation to ensure that Northern Ireland is not covered and that it is removed in terms of the environment. Will the Minister specify the steps that he will take on behalf of the Government to do just that?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 35 in my name. I thank Michael Clancy and everyone at the Law Society of Scotland for helping me prepare for this group of amendments and another group of amendments which will follow. A lot of what I will say echoes what has already been argued by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, with much of which I was in agreement.

The effect of Amendment 35 is to ensure that the sunset provision in Clause 1 will not apply to any common framework. I pay tribute to the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee and the work it does, not just in relation to this Bill but on other matters as well. One of the most successful methods to manage intra-UK divergence has been the creation of common frameworks, which are defined in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 as a

“consensus between a Minister of the Crown and one or more devolved administrations as to how devolved or transferred matters previously governed by EU law are to be regulated after IP completion day.”

The Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, in its report entitled Common Frameworks: An Unfulfilled Opportunity?, noted that

“the UK Government considers how legislation it brings forward might conflict with relevant common frameworks, impede their successful operation, and affect the health of the Union.”

The Government responded to that conclusion in the report by saying:

“The Retained EU Law … Bill”—


the Bill before us today—

“insofar as it introduces the date for the sunsetting of retained EU law … will impact upon most if not all of the Common Frameworks. The UK Government has committed to the proper use of Common Frameworks and will not seek to make changes to REUL falling within them without following the ministerial-agreed process in each Framework.”

That statement is welcome, but it does not go far enough and it does not welcome the current state of play.

Noble lords may be aware that, last week, the Scottish Parliament voted to withhold its consent for the UK Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill; it did so as a means of calling for the Bill to be withdrawn. Earlier, on 10 February, Angus Robertson, Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, sent a letter to the incoming Secretary of State for Business and Trade setting out the concerns of the Scottish Government in this regard and noting that these concerns had been raised previously with the UK Government at the time that the Bill was before the House of Commons. The Government have had ample opportunity to listen to the concerns so eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, in relation to the Welsh Government, and those raised by the Culture Secretary in the Scottish Parliament, Angus Robertson, and have declined to act on those concerns.

I would like to give my noble friend the opportunity to comment on the amendments that the Scottish Government have set out, one of which closely echoes Amendment 27 which I moved on Tuesday this week. Their option one is to remove the sunset clause in Clause 1 from the Bill entirely. Their option two is to remove devolved areas from the sunset clause in Clause 1. Their option three is to keep the sunset but move it to a later date and enable Scottish Ministers to extend it. Their option four is to enable Scottish Ministers to extend the sunset date in Clause 1.

The UK Government cannot continue in this arbitrary fashion, overriding the wishes of two separate nations, having this week celebrated the very good news regarding the Northern Ireland protocol. This is an opportunity for my noble friend to make good the commitments in the common framework agreements, as echoed in the conclusions of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, and I urge him to choose one of the options. I argue that my Amendment 27 is the best, but one of these options must be agreed, otherwise we will simply not make any progress with this Bill.

Eggs (England) Regulations 2021

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the instrument before us this afternoon, on which I have a number of questions. Paragraph 8.1 on page 2 of the Exploratory Memorandum says that:

“This instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union or trigger the statement requirements under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.”


However, it would seem that it relates entirely to our withdrawal from the European Union and the retained legislation that pertains to that. I am therefore not sure why that paragraph is there. Can the Minister clarify that please?

Paragraphs 10.4 and 10.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum refer to the consultation, which was carried out through

“the online survey Citizen Space”.

I do not know about other noble Lords, but online surveys are complete anathema to me. They do not seem a very personalised or direct form of consultation. Can my noble friend please explain to us whether this is now the way forward? Is this the Government’s consultation mode of choice? I want to place on record that I do not approve of that at all. It was also carried out on what is traditionally a holiday period—from 19 July to 16 August. I thought that consultations normally take place over a 12-week or three-month period to enable those who wish to respond in some detail to do so. This also allows the industry to talk among themselves to see whether they want only one person to respond, or everyone.

Paragraph 10.4 goes on to say that:

“The consultation targeted stakeholders from the egg sector, with close engagement with egg enforcement bodies.”


It would be interesting to know whether the six responses received match those that were actually sought. How many targeted invitations were sent out? Of those six, only one agreed to the proposal. The overwhelming majority of respondents disagreed with it,

“preferring checks to take place at the border, due to concerns that these measures should mirror the requirements for import of Class A eggs into the EU.”

I would like to know the basis on which we have moved away from the historic checks that we did at the place of import and why the Government are not carrying the industry with us.

I have to say that I am deeply unhappy that, to mitigate the concerns expressed by the vast majority of those who expressed any concerns at all, all we are going to do is to organise a round table. Clearly, we cannot amend the statutory instrument so I would be very interested to know what form the round table will take. The fact that a round table is going to be convened demonstrates that there are widespread concerns in the industry. I would be very interested to know who from the department will attend the round table. Will it be at ministerial level or official-only level?

I pay tribute to the report produced by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and refer to the committee’s thoughts on page 12 and in Appendix 4 on page 32. It appears that there are going to be two different types of checks in relation to GB to Northern Ireland. There will be checks at the border to ensure that the consignment contains either class A or B eggs, as at present. However, all eggs from Northern Ireland will continue to have unfettered access to the UK market. There is clearly a discrepancy there.

Finally—I had better stop because I could spend the whole of the afternoon on this one little instrument—my noble friend said in his introductory remarks, if I heard him correctly, that sanitary standard checks will continue to be made at the border. If we are doing those checks at the border, why on earth can we not do all the checks at one place on imports into this country?

I did say finally, but I did not mean finally. Will my noble friend commit to bringing forward an instrument on the question of equivalence at such time as he suggests that non-EU countries may come forward with imports? I think he said that there would be an instrument at that time. Can he confirm that that is indeed the case? I think he will understand from my drift that I do not like the instrument before us.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to paragraph 10.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states that consultation

“was undertaken as a joint consultation with the Scottish Government and Welsh Government. Northern Ireland is not involved in these amendments, due to the effects of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.”

I declare an interest as a member of the House of Lords sub-committee that is scrutinising the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, and I have some questions in this regard. What does that mean in practice? Can eggs from GB be put on the market in Northern Ireland, and vice versa? Do these eggs have to be checked before they can be put on the market in Great Britain or Northern Ireland? That issue was raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Living in Northern Ireland, I am very well aware that Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury’s sell quite a lot of products that come from GB. What will the nature of these checks be? Where will they be carried out?

I support the protocol and believe in its sustainability, but perhaps the Minister can advise on progress in the ongoing negotiations on the protocol between the UK and the EU, with particular reference to the SPS arrangements. That was one of the “non-papers” from the EU in relation to this issue.

As this is a domestic statutory instrument, it falls to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee rather than our protocol committee to scrutinise it. What is the interaction between this statutory instrument and the protocol? Perhaps the Minister can give us some detail and clarity on that interaction and on the practical impact on the supply of eggs from GB to Northern Ireland and vice versa. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, eggs that travel from Northern Ireland to Britain enjoy unfettered access, so it would be good to get clarity on that.

It is important that the Government make a full analysis of the interaction of domestic primary and secondary legislation with the protocol. A lot of these statutory instruments come to us simply for information purposes, but we also get referred legislation from the EU that will affect and impact Northern Ireland on an ongoing basis. The Government have analysed the interaction of domestic primary and secondary legislation with the protocol. What has been done to ensure that that analysis takes place on an ongoing basis? If it is taking place, is it possible to publish the results and for a copy to be placed in the Library of both Houses?

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Committee stage
Monday 28th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, continuing the theme of great minds thinking alike, apparently the requests for a clause stand part debate landed at exactly the same moment and there was the equivalent of tossing a coin to see whose name would appear. I am delighted to support the clause stand part debate and to go a little further in my Amendment 100.

My question to my noble friend at the outset is this: does he not accept that, for the OEP to do all that I am sure he, the Government and all of us would wish it to do, it must be seen to be independent, not just of the Government but of other organisations, such as Natural England and, to a certain extent, the Environment Agency? I am still not entirely clear what the relationship of the OEP and the Environment Agency and these other bodies will be. The question I keep asking, to which I hope one day to get an answer, is this: to who would a farmer, whether a landowner, a tenant or an owner-occupier, go to seek advice? Would it be Natural England, the Environment Agency or the OEP? That is not entirely clear.

I could never be cross with my noble friend, so I would not like to be described as a cross Back-Bencher, but I find it inappropriate that Clause 24 appears in the terms that it does. It is discretionary. It simply states that:

“The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in section 22(6) (OEP’s enforcement policy).”


It then goes on:

“The OEP must have regard to the guidance in … preparing its enforcement policy, and … exercising its enforcement functions.”


This reverts to the point I made earlier, when I set out my concern that it might be the case that a Secretary of State—or, heaven forfend, a junior Minister—might lean on members of the OEP to ensure that a particular enforcement does not go ahead. That would be utterly inappropriate. It then goes on to say that

“The Secretary of State may revise the guidance at any time”


but

“must lay before Parliament, and publish, the guidance (and any revised guidance).”

I am not quite sure which body would be scrutinising that in that situation. Later, it sets out the OEP’s enforcement functions.

At this point, I just say that I do not believe there is a place for Clause 24 in the Bill, and I look forward to some very strong justification or proposed changes that my noble friend might make when he sums up this little debate.

Just before I address my Amendment 100, I want to support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. They also go to the heart of parliamentary scrutiny, which we discussed a little earlier. I endorse those amendments; they are entirely appropriate.

Amendment 100 would go a little further than just leaving out Clause 24 and would insert a new clause specifically stating that

“In performing its functions, the OEP is not subject to the direction or control of the Secretary of State or any member of Her Majesty’s Government.”


I cannot put it in any stronger terms than that it would be entirely inappropriate for that to happen. This debate is a good opportunity to cast beyond doubt the independence of the OEP, not just, as I said, from government but in its dealing with other bodies which have a role to play in the environment. We want to give it the greatest authority we possibly can. I would argue that we leave out Clause 24 but insert my wording in Amendment 100.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I support the amendments in this group and wish to speak in particular to the amendments in my name: Amendments 117 and 118, relating to Northern Ireland.

Schedule 3 makes provision for the functions of the office of environmental protection in its activities in Northern Ireland. Along with many organisations, including Greener UK, I support the inclusion of Northern Ireland within the remit of the office of environmental protection. These provisions are broadly parallel to those in Part 1 and Schedule 1 that relate to England. I raised this specific point during Second Reading, some three weeks ago.

Extensive regulatory dysfunction and unacceptable levels of disregard for environmental law have resulted in substantial degradation of the environment in Northern Ireland, with significant economic and social costs. The independence of the OEP in Northern Ireland is therefore vital. The lack of an independent environmental regulator, despite the fact that it was first recommended in 1992 by a House of Commons Environment Select Committee report—nothing has ever happened in that regard—has meant historically weak environmental governance, which means that the OEP must have a cast-iron constitution and culture of independence from the outset. The need for independent oversight is exemplified in the case of designated sites, such as protected sites. In some cases, it is quite dismal in our areas of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

In this context I have a concern about a broad power for DAERA, the department in Northern Ireland, to issue guidance to the OEP that it must have regard to when preparing its enforcement policy or exercising its enforcement functions in Northern Ireland. This will affect the OEP’s ability to perform its role independently and does not take sufficient account of the particular political circumstances and context of Northern Ireland, including the mandatory power-sharing nature of the Northern Ireland Executive—hence Amendment 117.

There is concern about the timetable for appointing the Northern Ireland member of the OEP board. There must be no further delay in appointing that member, and the appointment process should be progressed as quickly as possible. I hope the Minister will pursue that with his equivalent colleague in the Northern Ireland Executive.

Those problems concerning the guidance power for DAERA should be removed from the Bill, and Amendment 117 would do that. There are three particular areas of concern. In line with the Ministerial Code, cross-cutting and controversial matters must be brought to the Northern Ireland Executive—and guidance from the DAERA Minister to the OEP on its enforcement policy and functions would qualify as both cross-cutting and controversial. Therefore, what is the procedure for bringing this guidance to the Executive before it is issued by DAERA? As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, about 13 years ago, I knew what that meant, but I just want to clarify that.

Secondly, ministerial appointments in Northern Ireland are managed through the d’Hondt system, under which the largest parties are allocated multiple departments. What mechanisms will be put in place to minimise the risk that a current or future DAERA Minister could use the guidance power to advise the OEP in relation to enforcement or potential non-compliance on environmental law relating to either a department of a similar affiliation or one allocated to an opposing party? Given its wide scope and the lack of transparency in how it will be prepared, the guidance could in theory be used for political benefit—a risk that does not appear to be considered by Defra or DAERA in designing this power.

As a public authority, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency will fall within the remit of the OEP. If DAERA exercised its power to issue guidance in relation to enforcement matters involving the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, that would further cloud Northern Ireland’s already difficult environmental governance and could result in blurred areas of accountability.

Amendment 118 would require the appointment of the Northern Ireland board to be made with the consent of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly. To engender the greatest level of stakeholder trust and buy-in to the OEP, Northern Ireland must be—and must be perceived to be—embedded within it from the start. The appointment of a dedicated Northern Ireland board member will help ensure that Northern Ireland’s nuances, including geopolitical, biogeographic and societal, are properly accounted for in the OEP’s policies and activities. It will also establish trust and credibility.

In this context, can the Minister ask DAERA to clarify the timescale for the appointment process? I note that the first interim board meeting of the OEP is expected to be held this Thursday, 1 July.

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Committee stage
Monday 21st June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Blencathra on being so industrious in coming up with such an imaginative way to put forward something that he obviously feels very passionate about. However, I support my noble friend the Minister, who I hope will go on to explain why we have settled on “biodiversity”. I support everything said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, about why “biodiversity” has a specific meaning. We should also look at the history of “biodiversity”. There are a number of international conventions with which I am sure my noble friend Lord Blencathra, particularly wearing his hat with Natural England, will be familiar. Is he proposing that we now try to change all the international conventions which originally referred, even more confusingly, to “biological diversity”? I would put forward “biodiversity” as a compromise between “biological diversity” and “nature” or “the natural environment”, because it has a specific meaning and we have subscribed to a number of international conventions. For those who will have to follow what is asked of them, “biodiversity” has that specific meaning, which I am sure my noble friend will explain.

I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in saying that we need a list of species or a better understanding of what is being asked. I am sure my noble friend will explain that when he moves the series of government amendments later today. I accept “biodiversity” as a compromise, but we need greater clarification of the list of species—flora and fauna—which are to be protected.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, with a degree of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve. We all want to make legislation more simple and able to be understood by members of the public, but in this instance, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. To change the name in the legislation at this stage would cause a level of disruption, because we already have international agreements that refer to “biodiversity”. The Dasgupta report also referred to it.

There is a simple difference between nature and biodiversity. According to my dictionary definition, nature covers all existing systems created at the same time as the earth, whereas biodiversity is the part of nature that is alive, born on a mineral substrate in an earlier geodiversity. Biodiversity provides numerous ecosystem services that are crucial to human well-being at present and in the future. Longer-term changes in climate affect the viability and health of ecosystems, influencing shifts in the distribution of plants, pathogens, animals and even human settlements. Biodiversity loss has negative effects on several aspects of human well-being, such as food security, vulnerability to natural disasters, energy security and access to clean water and raw materials. It also affects human health, social relations and freedom of choice.

Quite simply, through this legislation, we need to protect our living biodiversity. The inclusion of a target-setting framework is a welcome part of the Bill, and something that has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The long-term nature of environmental matters makes this all particularly important. Environmental improvement cannot be achieved over the short timeframe of a political cycle. We need to ensure that this Environment Bill provides an opportunity for the UK to become a world leader in the fight against all forms of pollution and biodiversity loss and in mitigating the impact of the climate emergency. The litmus test for all of us in the Lords is does changing “biodiversity” to “nature” in this Bill strengthen and toughen its provisions, does it weaken existing legal protections or does it make any difference?

I believe this Bill must turn the tide on nature’s decline, biodiversity decline and the climate emergency. It must transform the way we manage waste, protect our precious water resources and all the other aspects. So, I think at this late stage, it is best to keep to the term “biodiversity”, while I fully understand and appreciate the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Committee stage
Monday 8th March 2021 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, this group of amendments has an underlying theme of identifying the need for greater consumer protection in this area. I support the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Eatwell, in the aims of the much-needed—it would appear—Amendment 79. If he is minded to say that there is no need for such an amendment, could the Minister, in responding to this debate, point to the consumer protection regulations for those using buy now, pay later services? Many of us have seen how the level of personal and household indebtedness has greatly increased due to the lack of regulation in the area identified by Amendment 79.

I will turn to Amendment 101 before coming back to the others. I entirely support the thrust of this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, supported by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. It seems extraordinary that when consumer protections apply to hire purchase of a vehicle, they do not apply to the circumstances that have been set out and so eloquently identified by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, so the time has come for these two Victorian statutes to be replaced. I would like the Minister to give a very good reason why this could not happen and why we cannot simply rely on hire purchase schemes, which give greater protections to the owner and the existing user of a vehicle, for this form of purchase.

Amendments 92 and 93 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer and Amendment 136C from my noble friend Lord Holmes identify the need for access to cash. I find cashless societies highly regrettable, particularly for elderly and other vulnerable people; I know there are some in Europe; Sweden is well down this path and Denmark is going down it. On continuing access to cash, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has set out, and my noble friend Lord Holmes set out in his Amendment 136C, why it is extremely important to have proper protections in these areas.

My noble friend Lord Holmes pointed out the role of cash in Covid and why it goes to the heart of financial inclusion. Without wishing to put words in his mouth, I will take his thoughts one step further: I am deeply concerned that the Government propose that the amount available in a contactless transaction will imminently be increased to a maximum of £100. This will possibly enable many people to lose control of their finances, and it will open the door to greater fraud, even where a debit or credit card has not left your possession.

I have been the victim of such fraud. I am delighted to say that the credit card company I was with at the time reimbursed me almost immediately for the loss. What that means is that we are all paying for that loss as credit card or debit card users. The existing limit of £45 is right at the moment; I would hesitate to increase it to £100. I do not know whether there is a bottomless pit for endless frauds or what it means if the limit goes up to £100 on a contactless transaction. Are there limitless reserves? Who pays for the fraud in this regard?

In Amendment 136F, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has identified an area that is timely for review: the regulation of bailiffs and bailiff firms for the purpose of taking control of goods. I would be delighted to hear from the Minister that, even if the Government are not minded to accept this amendment, he will come forward with similar provisions as set out therein and recognise that there is a need for this to take place.

On Amendment 135 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh, I think all of us say, “There but for the grace of God go I”. Identity theft is a compelling crime. He set out some modest requirements that the Government would do well to follow.

I find that the amendments in this group have an underlying theme of the need for greater consumer protection. Although they are disparate in what they seek to achieve, each of them has merits to commend it. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the excellent case that has been made for each amendment in this group.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

I wish to speak in support of Amendment 79 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Tunnicliffe. It seeks to protect people from buy now, pay later firms that, in many instances, financially abuse people. It is important that people who find themselves in this position are financially protected. In many ways, the amendments in this group seek to do what the noble Baroness said: they are all about consumer protection.

In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred to the Woolard review, part of which clearly states the need for customer harm to be minimised and to come under the purview of the Financial Conduct Authority. From doing some background reading, I thought I learned that the Government were receptive to the review’s findings. In this regard, I wonder whether the Government, through the Minister, will bring forward on Report amendments to deal with this issue if they are not prepared to accept Amendment 79 today. However, it may be that they will accept it in view of their acceptance of the Woolard review.

At Second Reading, I highlighted this area and asked whether the Government would bring forward in Committee amendments to ensure that buy now, pay later credit services are brought into the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority to protect people from spending more than they can afford. Indeed, many people in this net take out further debt to repay initial credit, then end up with their debt spiralling out of control.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, particularly on this subject. I believe that there is an open door here when talking about the protection of abused people. At Second Reading, I stated that the Domestic Abuse Bill has the potential to deliver a step change in the national response to domestic abuse but that the legislation requires significant change to tackle gaps in the system and ensure equal protection and support for all survivors. I believe that this suite of amendments offers in a small way the opportunity to protect those who have been abused.

I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lord Hunt, as well as those from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, as they are trying to strengthen the powers for dealing with domestic abuse.

Many people are abused not only at their place of residence but also at their place of work. In many instances, prior to the pandemic, people spent longer at work or an educational institution each day than at home. Strict provisions need to be put in statute to ensure that the person who is abused feels safe and is protected. If they have children at home, they should also be protected and should not be exposed to the type of abuse levelled at their mother, or be caught up in the tension that the abuse engenders. In particular, I refer to the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which seek to ensure that those who make domestic abuse protection orders have discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.

In many cases, the perpetrator will also seek out the person they wish to abuse, whether a former partner or an existing partner, in their place of work. I have some direct experience, involving an employee, of where the legislation was too weak. A lady who was a cleaner for us was deeply frightened and obviously did not wish to talk about it. The person carrying out the abuse stalked her place of work, waiting for her to go into and come out of work, and was quite intrusive when we were dealing with constituents who came into the office. Noble Lords can imagine that that type of abuse was levelled not only at his partner but at other people. The nature of the cleaner’s work meant that she worked in other places, and he followed her there and waited outside those houses until she came out. She was therefore continuously abused at her places of work. People in these circumstances deserve full protection under the provisions that may be made by the notices, and careful attention must be given to further provisions in the requirements that may be imposed by orders.

The Minister’s amendment, Amendment 75, while important and a welcome development, should include the workplace. I have no doubt that my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lord Hunt will return to this issue on Report, when I shall be very happy to support them. Perhaps in winding up, the Minister can open the door further and accept these amendments as a means of trying to protect the abused person in the workplace and in educational establishments and to stamp out that level of heinous abuse.

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

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who spoke with such passion on this group. I shall speak specifically to Amendments 75 and 78, and I congratulate the Government on tabling them as they will strengthen the actions against a perpetrator.

On a strict reading of Amendment 75, it would appear that its wording would cover work premises—an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Hunt. I think that is the Government’s intention in including the words

“may not come within a specified distance of … other specified premises”.

It would be helpful to know that to put noble Lords’ minds at rest.

I particularly want to raise issues that are in the briefing from Refuge, for which I am extremely grateful. As the implementation of the new DAPO is likely to be complex, Refuge supports it being piloted. It will be interesting to hear how it will be piloted. Does the Minister share my view that in Amendments 75 and 78, which I welcome, we recognise that more DAPOs will be issued? Refuge has suggested that this is an area where we should look at adequate training and investment in police forces to ensure that they are using DAPOs wherever appropriate, that perpetrators are arrested and charged when these are breached, that the guidance is sufficiently clear and that the police are sufficiently familiar with how DAPOs are meant to work, which would be the case if there was a pilot in which any teething problems could be ironed out.

I commend Amendments 75 and 78 and thank the Government and my noble friends for tabling them. I will be interested to hear whether the Government look warmly on the suggestions I have made.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 7th December 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, these two amendments have much to commend them and dovetail neatly with parts of my Amendment 7, which we will consider in a moment: in particular, that any trade agreement or report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission should be laid before Parliament in sufficient time for it to be considered. I will go into more detail when we come to that group of amendments, but it would also extend the period during which a vote shall be held in each House to up to 42 days, so there is an overlap between Amendment 6 and my Amendment 7. This is important for the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, my noble friend Lord Lansley and others, particularly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who chairs the committee and speaks with great authority on these issues. There must be time for both Houses of Parliament to consider those agreements, in the terms set out by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others supporting Amendment 6.

I refer again to the useful table included on page 77 of the National Food Strategy, part 1, which I refer to as the Dimbleby report, part 1, which sets out the scrutiny of trade agreements in the various legislative Chambers. It is true that in Australia, Parliament must vote on legislation to implement a trade agreement only where it requires changes to national laws. However, tariffs are set in statute in Australia, so that effectively gives Parliament a vote on trade treaties. For TTIP, the House in Australia spent two days debating the treaty and the Senate one day. In Canada, as in Australia, Parliament does not have a formal vote on treaties; the Executive must lay a deal before Parliament 21 days before any action to implement the agreement is taken. However, as in Australia, Canada’s tariffs are set in statute, so again, Parliament inevitably needs to vote on the deal as a whole as well as any implementing legislation.

Perhaps the most thorough—albeit that we are leaving the European Union—is the European Union process itself. In New Zealand, Parliament must vote on legislation to implement the trade agreement, which means that the treaty is voted on again by the House only if it requires a change in domestic legislation. It has already been said that in Japan, the approval of the National Diet, the Japanese Parliament, is required for any trade agreement to come into force, and in Switzerland, all trade agreements must be approved by the Federal Assembly, the Swiss Parliament. If 50,000 Swiss citizens request it, they must be put to a referendum. Our scrutiny of trade agreements—not continuity agreements but new agreements, where, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, identified, there is no underlying EU agreement—is deficient compared to that of other national jurisdictions and Parliaments.

I have sympathy with Amendment 6, although I will go on to explain when we come to the group beginning with Amendment 7 why I believe that my wording is preferable.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I support the objectives of Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and colleagues, which seeks to ensure that trade deals are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and that consultation takes place with the devolved Administrations, a feature that is currently missing. This is particularly acute as we have just three weeks until the end of the transition period and do not know whether there is to be a trade deal or whether, if agreed, it will be zero tariff, or whether the UK will be operating under WTO rules.

This amendment, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and other noble Lords, has been supported by the Trade Justice Movement and Greener UK. It has five properties, which are very important for the scrutiny of trade deals. First, before negotiations, there will be a debate and vote by MPs on the Government’s negotiating objectives; secondly, during negotiations, there will be additional scrutiny through a dedicated parliamentary committee; thirdly, after negotiations, there will be a vote in both Houses on a final deal, prior to ratification; fourthly, there will be mandatory sustainability impact assessments on the impact of the new trade deal on the environment, public health, human rights and global development; and, fifthly, there will be consultation with the devolved authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, those things absolutely are important. Coming from Northern Ireland and having been a representative of the devolved institution there, I say that it is important that we recognise and acknowledge the devolution settlements.

Those five provisions offer a considerable improvement on the level of parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals in the UK, whose processes lag behind those of the EU and other countries. The current treaty scrutiny system, as outlined in the CRaG Act, is inadequate and has been criticised by five parliamentary committees, including the Lords Constitution Committee and the Lords International Agreements Sub-Committee.

Modern trade agreements affect large parts of public policy, including consumer and workers’ rights, environmental and climate change legislation, food standards, health, public services and international development. In such a context, it is vital that trade deals are developed democratically. I support Amendment 6. I also support Amendment 12, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. If the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, eventually presses his amendment, I will support him in the Lobbies this evening.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

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 speak briefly on both these amendments. I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and co-signatories are pushing in Amendment 23. I presume that, in responding, the Minister will say that the Government are putting forward an economic Bill to create an internal market to compensate for us leaving the internal market of which we have been a member for 46 years.

Amendment 23, like Amendment 21, does not have regard to the one remaining part of the original Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that has been left out of Amendment 21. I gather this was an oversight that will be corrected at Third Reading. In my view, the fatal flaw is that any reference to public safety or security has been left out. It is interesting to note that environmental standards and protection of the environment—which, I would say, includes climate change—and many of the other issues in Amendments 21 and 23 are dealt with elsewhere. It is bizarre to leave out any reference to public safety and security when we are in the middle of a pandemic, which is why I could not vote for Amendment 21 at this stage.

I am full of praise for the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for bringing forward Amendment 22. I presume that the Minister, in responding, will say that it is not this Bill but the Trade Bill that will prevent the Welsh Government or Yorkshire councils from seeking to favour their own produce in public procurement. I am particularly mindful of the work that Deliciouslyorkshire does. Obviously, all food in Yorkshire is delicious, but Deliciouslyorkshire is a marketing organisation that promotes foods made in Yorkshire.

I was very enthusiastic about one of the potential benefits, if there were to be any, of leaving the European Union in that we would be able to source more of our foods locally. Now I understand that, in the global procurement agreement in the Trade Bill, we will have to meet exactly the same threshold as we were required to meet in the European Union public procurement policies and tenders for bids. Am I right, or is the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, right? Will there be opportunities for the Welsh Government and Yorkshire councils to promote and source more of their own foods in, for example, local hospitals, prisons and schools than would otherwise have been the case?

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendments 22 and 23, but I shall refer in particular to Amendment 22 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Hain. Again, this is about ensuring that no straitjacket or limit is placed on the procurement practices of devolved Administrations. It is about protecting their functions, with particular reference to the market access principles, which should not override devolution settlements. The noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Empey, referred to the situation of Northern Ireland which, in terms of goods for procurement purposes, will be subject to the Northern Ireland protocol and, therefore, the EU.

While I believe there is a need to ensure that there are no borders anywhere, whether in the Irish Sea or on the island of Ireland, notwithstanding that, there are areas of clarification required. Can the Minister say, or perhaps write to us on it at a later stage, whether any procurement practices would apply to the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland which would be subject to UK oversight as per the Bill? Will there be any at all?

Secondly, on the previous group I asked the Minister whether he could provide an update on the interparliamentary Brexit forum, which consisted of representatives of the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. It has not met since September 2019. Maybe he could provide us with an update on when its next meeting is likely to take place.

Further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I am reminded of those made by the UK constitution monitoring group. It said that government Ministers have occasionally asserted that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is not a constitutional measure at all but is concerned only with economic policy. It would therefore perhaps be better to characterise it as a key building-block in an emerging economic constitution for the UK, post Brexit. However that may be, the group believes that the Bill raises fundamental questions about the governance of the UK following withdrawal from the European Union, in particular whether it will be possible to establish a common understanding of the future role and importance of the devolved institutions in UK governance. Would the Minister like to comment on that statement in his wind-up, and will he assure the House that market access principles will not be used to override the devolution settlement?

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 19th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and support the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her amendment, to which I have added my name.

The report that the Government commissioned and appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to do on these issues of medicines and medical devices made nine very clear recommendations in July. One central recommendation in that report, First Do No Harm, was the need for a task force to oversee the implementation of the recommendations from the report —hence this amendment today.

If the Government, the Minister and his colleagues, are serious about the recommendations and recognise that there is an issue and a problem in relation to certain medicines and medical devices, they should see fit to implement all nine recommendations. I think back to when I was doing some research on this. An eminent QC, Lauren Sutherland, said that the Government should not ignore these recommendations—they should implement them.

I made the request, along with many other noble Lords, for the implementation of the task force during Second Reading in early September. I said that it should be set up without delay to oversee progress, and I believe that, if the Government are to take this report seriously and ensure that such failures do not happen again, that needs to happen. What better way to have an implementation group than by the task force that is already in existence, because it was independent of government, has worked on these issues for two years and is fully acquainted with all the matters, problems and challenges met by many people, who have suffered indignity and immeasurable pain as a result of the imprecision in relation to medical devices? To ensure proper implementation and oversight of the recommendations, a task force is a necessary prerequisite and needs to be placed in the Bill. The first remit or task of such a task force should be to set a timeline for its work and delivery of the review’s recommendations. The only way for that to work is if the implementation task force is put in the Bill.

As the report states, the task force should be made up of representatives of the various arms of the healthcare system that have a recognisable role to play in delivering patient safety—in other words, people acquainted with the issues and who have knowledge and expertise. Those responsible for implementation need to know that their work and progress will be monitored and they will be accountable. Supporting the implementation process should be a reference group made up of a range of patient interests going far wider than the groups the report members dealt with. Yet again, such a reference group would consist of people with direct experience, and ongoing daily experience, of the impact of such medicines that have been specified, as well as other types of medicines, where there have been side effects, and the medical devices that have caused so many problems to so many women and men.

We need a system and task force that listens, hears and acts with speed, compassion and with proportionality to prevent further avoidable harm—hence my support for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to establish such an implementation task force without delay in the Bill.

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

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on the work that she and her able team have done on the report, First Do No Harm. I entirely support the amendment, and I am delighted to follow in this the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who has pointed out that by definition it will have only a limited life. Its main work will be to ensure that the functions of the report and all the recommendations are followed through. However, I take this opportunity to ask both Ministers if they are minded to support this. Possibly, when my noble friend comes to respond, we might hear what the nature might be of the budget allocated to the task force, as well as to whom, if at all, the oversight governance board in subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause might report, and whether it is intended that Parliament might have an overview of the work of the task force.

In establishing the task force, it is absolutely vital that there is a body that has the role, as is intended in this amendment, of implementing the recommendations set out in the report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. I would personally favour the mechanism in this amendment that a task force should be set up for this purpose, limited in time with a specific view. I would be interested to know what budget might be allocated, and from which budget this would come, and also if there was a mechanism to keep Parliament informed of the work of the task force for its limited life.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 18th November 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak to and move Amendment 6, which I hope is self-explanatory. It seeks to clarify the meaning of Clause 5(3), regarding the effect of the statutory requirement under Clause 6. It should have read, just for greater clarification, “A relevant requirement (see section 6) is of no effect in the destination part but only if, and to the extent that”. That is a compromise we reached for greater understanding of the text.

The effect of Clause 5(3) will be to render a discriminatory statutory provision in UK or devolved legislation of no effect. I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for co-signing this amendment. In Committee, we had reservations about the meaning of “no effect”, because it lacked clarity. That was the view put forward by the Law Society of Scotland, which has helped me to draft this amendment.

My noble friend Lord Callanan confirmed in Committee that:

“Clause 5(3) will operate so that any future requirements that fall within the scope of the non-discrimination principle will be of no effect to the extent that they are discriminatory. For the benefit of the lawyers, this does not mean that the requirement is to be treated as if it never had any legal effect. Rather, it allows the continued operation of the requirement, except to the extent that it has discriminatory effects.”


The amendment therefore seeks to emphasise that the lack of effect relates only to the discriminatory element of the statutory requirement and does not otherwise affect the validity of the requirement. I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to confirm that that is the case.

There is also concern about the application of Clause 5(3) to a statutory provision in an Act of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Callanan confirmed that:

“As the Bill deals with trade across the whole of the United Kingdom, the intention is that this will apply to all legislation: secondary legislation, primary legislation passed by devolved legislatures and legislation passed by the UK Parliament.”—[Official Report, 28/10/20; col. 251.]


Under Clause 49, legislation means, inter alia, primary legislation, which includes an Act of Parliament. Therefore, we know that this provision means that such an Act will be of no effect to the extent that it is discriminatory under the Bill. I am minded to repeat the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, who mentioned that secondary legislation can be open to interpretation by the courts. I would be most grateful if my noble friend could clarify and further benefit us with his understanding of this provision.

I also comment briefly on Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and others, with which I have some sympathy, as it ensures continued compliance with the principle of non-regression in Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol. That is a worthy aim, and I admire the enthusiasm and energy with which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has pursued this in the interests of her nation. With those few remarks, I beg to move and wait to hear the response of my noble friend to this little debate.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of both amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has already explained the purpose of Amendment 6. Amendment 24 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain.

We have been contacted by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which have agreed to act as a dedicated mechanism responsible for the monitoring, supervising, advising and reporting on and enforcing the UK’s commitment, under Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement from the end of the transition period. They believe that this amendment is needed to ensure that the Bill is brought into compliance with the UK’s obligation under Article 2 of the protocol to the EU/UK withdrawal agreement.

The problem with the Bill as currently drafted arises when Clause 5 is read in conjunction with Clause 6. The commissions’ research only came to light while we were in Committee, as they were awaiting senior counsel’s advice, hence the only opportunity to have brought forward this amendment is now, on Report. I thank all noble Lords who have signed the amendment and hope that your Lordships’ House accepts that explanation.

Clause 5(1) provides that:

“The non-discrimination principle for goods is the principle that the sale of goods in one part of the United Kingdom should not be affected by relevant requirements that directly or indirectly discriminate against goods that have a relevant connection with another part of the United Kingdom.”


It may appear, on superficial reading, that Clause 5 applies only to goods and not, for example, to statutory requirements regarding employment conditions. This is incorrect, however, because Clause 6(3) provides details of what constitutes “relevant requirements” for the purposes of Clause 5(1):

“A statutory provision is within the scope of the non-discrimination principle if it relates to any one or more of the following—


(a) the circumstances or manner in which goods are sold (such as where, when, by whom, to whom, or the price or other terms on which they may be sold);


(b) the transportation, storage, handling or display of goods;


(c) the inspection, assessment, registration, certification, approval or authorisation of the goods or any similar dealing with them;


(d) the conduct or regulation of businesses that engage in the sale of certain goods or types of goods.”


The effect of these provisions, therefore, is to bring statutory provisions regarding employment conditions, including legislation regulating wages, which apply to those selling goods, within the scope of the non-discrimination requirement in Clause 5(1). This means that equality legislation regarding employment conditions introduced in Northern Ireland in order to comply with the non-diminution requirement in Article 2 of the protocol must be protected.

If there is a challenge to such employment legislation, it is not clear that the legislation can be defended on the grounds that it can, as set out in Clause 8 of the Bill,

“reasonably be considered a necessary means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

Clause 8 defines what constitutes a legitimate aim. This appears to be an exhaustive list and does not include, for example, compliance with an international treaty as a legitimate aim. To illustrate the potential impact of the Bill on the Article 2 obligation, I will set out an example of additional requirements on employers in Northern Ireland that could be introduced as a result of changes to the Annexe 1 directives that deal with the wide panoply of equality directives that could be challenged under the Bill. It is not possible to predict the exact nature and extent of future EU changes to the Annexe 1 equality directives, including new obligations on employers.

However, taking into consideration EU equality law changes already made, recent European Commission proposals and plausible future scenarios, there is a reasonable prospect that over time, the Annexe 1 directives dealing with all equality matters may be updated, amended or replaced, and additional EU requirements on employers introduced. Employers in Great Britain may consider that these changes negatively impact on their businesses and influence an employer’s decision to employ staff in Northern Ireland, and thus to provide goods in Northern Ireland, and would therefore be challengeable as indirectly discriminatory under the Bill. The equal pay example can be characterised with the EU amending or replacing the existing equal treatment directive to incorporate extended equal pay obligations on employers.

As a result of these additional requirements, an employer in Great Britain with a predominantly female workforce could decide not to employ staff in Northern Ireland and could consider that there is more limited market access in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. Using the indirect discrimination prohibition in the Bill, the employer could challenge legislation enacted by the Northern Ireland Assembly to comply with these new obligations. Other examples could be given relating to disability discrimination, race equality, equal pay audits and gender pay reporting.

To comply with Article 2 of the protocol, there is a need to ensure that any such additional requirements on employers in Northern Ireland, introduced to keep Northern Ireland equality law aligned with future EU changes to the equality directives in Annexe 1, cannot be challenged as indirectly discriminatory under the Bill. I therefore urge the Government to accept this amendment and ask the Minister to accept a letter from me, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission, which will outline in depth their main concerns about this issue. Will he meet with us and the other signatories to the amendment to discuss these issues? I honestly believe that the amendment would provide legal clarity and certainty, including for employers who have responsibility under Article 2 of the protocol.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

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 welcome this opportunity to agree with what has been said by previous speakers, and particularly thank those who have contributed to this debate through the 24th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for putting into effect the conclusions of that report. The report is indeed striking in its conclusions, and in particular in the power of the language used. I think students of constitutional law will be watching these deliberations very closely to see whether this is a new trend on the part of the Government or a one-off.

My understanding is that the Bill is in large measure to deal with the political fallout of the Government agreeing to the EU withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is my understanding. My further understanding is that, when Parliament agrees to delegate powers to the Executive, it does so on the strict understanding that the Government will act on behalf of Parliament with respect for the rule of law and parliamentary democracy. Clearly, in all five parts of the Bill, this is stretched to breaking point. As has been said, the reliance in the Bill on the sweeping Henry VIII clauses is breath-taking. So I entirely echo what has been said by previous speakers and find that I have great sympathy with the amendments.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and to agree with the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. For me, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is particularly instructive, because it has issued a very scathing report which states quite clearly that, in the absence of a convincing justification for the Henry VIII powers in those clauses, the power is inappropriate and should be removed from the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said that perhaps the Government wish to use these powers to get their way in terms of the withdrawal agreement—an international agreement which they signed only one year ago with the European Union—and to undermine the Northern Ireland protocol, which in turn could undermine another international agreement, the Good Friday agreement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that the people of Ireland, north and south, who voted for that agreement and who by and large support the principle behind the Northern Ireland protocol—to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and to prevent any further turmoil, trauma, distress or levels of terrorism—will not take kindly to any of that.

I was also very taken with the words—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Fox—of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, a few years ago about parliamentary sovereignty. Yes, parliamentary sovereignty is the antithesis of executive sovereignty, and I do recall, as a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, that I was always told that the Executive are accountable to Parliament. Can the Minister advise the House whether there has been consultation of any kind with the devolved Administrations? I know that Scotland and Wales have so far refused to give legislative consent to the Bill, because they clearly see the powers within it as totally egregious in terms of what they can do, and in terms of no consent being required from them and no real consultation. I also know that in the Northern Ireland Assembly there was a majority vote against the UK Internal Market Bill.

I believe that there are three different issues with these powers. Giving too much power to Ministers to change the rules of the UK internal market via regulations without proper parliamentary scrutiny is wrong. It is interesting to note that the regulations in these clauses require first a consultation with the devolved counterparts, so there is a need to obtain their consent to such regulations, but that consent is clearly absent. That is what Amendments 13 and 28 are all about.

The Bill also has an extremely narrow understanding of exceptions to these principles. If we compare it with the EU internal market where other objectives such as environmental improvement can be used, at least in certain cases, to restrict mutual recognition and keep more ambitious domestic rules, we see that the Secretary of State also has the power to add, vary or remove exceptions, as set out later in Clause 8 for non-discrimination and in Clause 10 for all the principles to which Amendment 47 refers.

There is no doubt that the UK Internal Market Bill will become a protected environment that the devolved Administrations will be unable to repeal or modify. That is why these amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, are apt and timely. They should be supported because both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee believe that the use of these powers is wrong.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

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

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I am happy to participate in this debate and would like to lend my support to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.

There has been a lot of discussion over the last 40 years about the impact of pesticides on the human health of rural residents and on biodiversity, flora, fauna, insects and animals. Therefore, I am very much drawn to Amendment 78, which I believe is a crucial amendment, trying to protect human health from agricultural pesticides. Rural residents and communities across the UK continue to be adversely impacted by the cocktail of pesticides sprayed on crops in our localities, reporting various acute and chronic effects on health.

I am a rural dweller. I did not grow up on a farm but I am very conscious of the impact of those pesticides because I am an asthmatic. I have talked to many people whose health has been impacted by sheep dip, by Roundup and by the emergence of diseases that hitherto there was no family history of, and that they had not suffered from before. Exposure and risk for rural committees and residents are from the release of those cocktails of harmful agricultural pesticides into the air where people live and breathe because, once pesticides have been dispersed, their airborne droplets, particles and vapours are in the air irrespective of whether or not there is wind.

In that regard, I take note of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Vapour lift-off can occur days, weeks or months after any application, further exposing those living in the locality, and it has nothing to do with the wind. The Government’s stated position that pesticides are strictly regulated and that scientific assessment shows there are no risks to people and the environment, is simply not correct. Since 2009, EU and UK equivalent laws legally define rural residents living in a locality of pesticide-sprayed crops as a vulnerable group, recognised as having high pesticide exposure over the long term. Further, the risks of both acute and chronic effects of such exposure are again recognised in article 7 of the EU sustainable use directive. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept this amendment. If not, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will press it to Division. It should be given statutory effect because rural populations are looking for this direction and this protection.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.

I congratulate the authors of this interesting group of amendments on the thought and effort that they have put into them. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, will realise, I have some concerns about her amendments, particularly regarding the drafting and how they might be interpreted; for example, the word “drifting” is open to interpretation. The noble Baroness herself highlighted some of the difficulties this group would have. It would be enormously helpful if the Minister could explain the current regulations when summing up. I am not totally familiar with this area but I understand that it is heavily regulated and that there is quite stringent provision in the current code of practice, which is operated by the Health and Safety Executive and was itself updated quite recently, I think in 2005.

I am also concerned about Amendment 78, which is loosely drafted. Subsection (1) includes the phrase,

“prohibiting the application of any pesticide … near”.

That seems very loosely drafted, so I would be interested to hear how the Minister thinks the provision could be implemented, were it to be passed today.

This is a good opportunity for the Minister to raise our awareness of previous research and commercial innovation relevant to air levels and other controls of pesticides. I am minded of the fact that a lot of work is going on, I think in Essex, breeding bugs that eat and destroy other bugs, which I presume would fall within the remit of Amendment 80 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dundee.

My concern is that, for the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, this area is already heavily regulated and the amendments could be very difficult to implement as drafted.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for recognising that the House was very uneasy about there being a five-year period between the initial and subsequent reports. If I understood him correctly when he spoke to this group of amendments, the Government will report at least every three years. However, if, for example, there is a shortage of food supply at home and a big fall in our self-sufficiency from the current 60%, and if, at any time after 1 January, there is any threat to the level of food imports into this country that could cause a future shock or crisis, I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to review this matter and report more frequently than every three years. However, I thank him for listening to the House and to those of us who raised these concerns at Second Reading and in Committee.

I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in his Amendment 57, to which I have appended my name. It would require the Government to specify food security targets and implement actions to ensure that those targets were met. I hope that my noble friend would in the course of natural events seek to do that in the reports to which he has referred.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening and I thank noble Lords who spoke in Committee about the need for more frequent reporting on food security. It is important that we have more frequent reports on food security. Only this year, the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee, of which I am a member, published a reported entitled Hungry for Change. It detailed the need for regular reporting and to address inadequate supply chains, which will be exacerbated not only by Brexit but by Covid. We need to address the effect of this global pandemic on the current levels of food insecurity in the UK, the developing world and other areas on which we rely for food.

I also support Amendment 50, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which I regard as probably an interim measure. I was happy to put my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She and I well recall our time as members of the EFRA Select Committee in the other place, of which she was chair. The committee found that levels of food security and food insecurity were equally inadequate and required to be addressed. Perhaps now we are getting to grips with this issue, which will have been made worse by Covid and Brexit.

On food provenance, it is important that we know where our food comes from and that it is properly controlled. People should receive an adequate supply of food and should no longer have to resort to food banks. However, the reality is that many people rely on them. We have to try to ensure that people have access to the right benefits, and in that regard there should be a review of the whole universal credit system.

Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to address the issue of food security? It is a global issue as well as a domestic one. We need specific food security targets to be set on an annual basis, although I welcome the move to a three-yearly basis. Relevant reporting to Parliament is also required every three years, although I would also prefer to see that on an annual basis. We have to see what is actually going on, and when we have witnessed that, surely Parliament, working with the Government, can take appropriate action to address deficits in both food security and insecurity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the co-signatories for bringing forward Amendment 63 and others in this little group. Amendment 67, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick—I thank her for supporting this amendment —seeks to achieve precisely the same ends. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in expressing regret that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is not able to speak to this group, but I entirely understand the circumstances in which he felt he had to head north.

Again like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I pay tribute to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, who has done a sterling job in regulating the relationships between the major retailers and direct suppliers. I was most grateful to have the opportunity to discuss this amendment with my noble friend the Minister, who I understand may be able to signify some movement in this regard. I look forward to that with great interest.

I hope that the Government are minded to widen the remit to cover the gap that needs to be plugged by including the indirect supply chain, such as dairy, which is currently excluded from the process. For dairy producers and fruit growers, many of whom are quite small in size, it is extremely difficult to bring a complaint to the Groceries Code Adjudicator. That is why I am very keen—and it is something that we concluded some seven or eight years ago on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee next door—that it should be incumbent on the Groceries Code Adjudicator to bring forward, on her initiative, investigations in this regard. The indirect supply chain, as well as the direct, is extremely important for these small suppliers, and things do sometimes go awry. We should not be entirely reliant on complaints from small producers and growers who can too easily be identified and may, as a result, lose their contract, livelihood and mainstay of their income.

I very much support the Groceries Code Adjudicator taking over this role. I understand the difficulties, as she reports to a different department. If there has been some movement and my noble friend is able to see a way forward in this regard, I think it would be very welcome to the House.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I support this suite of amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has said, I was quite happy to add my name to her Amendment 67 but, in fact, all these amendments as elucidated by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, clearly seek to achieve the same ends, namely to widen the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the indirect supply chain, to benefit those in the dairy industry and fruit growers’ association.

I pay tribute to the outgoing Groceries Code Adjudicator, Christine Tacon, and welcome the new person to that role. It is interesting that there was a review published on 16 July this year into the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which found that:

“The overall evidence from the review also suggested there is still a need for”


such an organisation and such a person,

“to ensure retailers comply with the requirements of the Groceries Code.”

Some responses to the review indicated that some suppliers are still reluctant to raise issues with the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The Government recognise in the report the steps that the current Groceries Code Adjudicator has taken to encourage suppliers to raise issues and make the commitment to work with the next Groceries Code Adjudicator—the new person in that job—and the retailers directly.

Since the Groceries Code Adjudicator is the independent regulator ensuring that regulated retailers treat their direct suppliers lawfully and fairly, it would be good at this stage if the Minister could show us a certain direction of reflection in his thinking in respect of the amendments in this group, which seek to widen the remit of the role to cover the indirect suppliers and to ensure that there are greater levels of regulation.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I will listen with great interest to what the authors of the other amendments say in relation to theirs.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for their support. Despite what has changed since Committee—which I have now lost—I am persisting with this amendment because of part 1 of the report on the National Food Strategy in the name of Henry Dimbleby. I will refer to this in later amendments as well. His conclusion in Chapter 5 is very telling. Although we “got away with it” in relation to the Covid crisis, we came perilously close to food security issues, particularly food shortages in shops during the early stages. Obviously that is something we wish to prevent going forward.

I believe that this is a genuine omission on the part of the Government. I am sure it is purely an oversight, rather than anything mischievous, but if we refer to the later Clause 17, it is extremely important to have a reference in Clause 1. The new subsection we are proposing would insert

“protecting or improving the food security of citizens and access to food that promotes good health and wellbeing”

and that is extremely important. As the National Food Strategy: Part One so rightly identifies, there are many reasons why we may be presented with such shortages and shocks to food security in the future. That is why it is important to write this into the Bill as a recognised public good, and therefore qualifying for public assistance.

I mentioned the reference to Covid; it seemed that we got away with it this time. However, Clause 17 refers to

“global food availability … supply sources for food … the resilience of the supply chain for food … household expenditure on food … food safety and consumer confidence in food”.

Climate change is obviously a key theme running through a number of amendments which follow later, while future pandemics could give greater cause for concern. I know that other amendments seek to address national food shortages, caused potentially by not growing enough of our own—the level of self-sufficiency is low, as we have discussed previously—and potential household shortages. My main concern is a potential major shock flowing from the lack of a deal and the difficulties of trying to negotiate under World Trade Organization terms of reference, which could lead to major trading deficiencies. That is why I believe that Amendment 6 needs to be written into the clause.

I will listen carefully to what my noble friend the Minister says in summing up, but, without a shadow of a doubt, food security should qualify as a public good and thereby be eligible for financial assistance. If he is able to point us in the direction of how, in other circumstances, financial assistance would kick in, that may go some distance in allaying my concerns. This goes further than a probing amendment, but I do not necessarily wish to test the will of the House on it. I hope that my noble friend will take seriously what we propose in this amendment and what his own adviser, Henry Dimbleby, has said.

The House owes the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, a great debt for bringing forward Amendment 48, and I congratulate him on doing so. There is major cause for concern about how common land will be administered under the terms of the Bill. The danger is that if we leave the discussions at this stage, we will rely on the regulations that will follow, which I know will be manifold. I thank my noble friend for his rather lengthy telephone call. I do not think he realised it would be quite such a long call, but I am so grateful to him and his team in this regard. However, I support the sentiments that lie behind Amendment 48 and, in this regard, would like to know exactly how the regulations which flow from the Bill will apply. I know that, in other circumstances, departments have been willing to give advance notice of how the regulations will apply. That would be most helpful indeed.

I know the reason why common land is so vexatious. I may no longer be MP for Thirsk and Malton but, having stood there, I know that common land is generally not widely understood because it exists only in certain parts of the country. However, there are multiple interests at play there, so I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take this opportunity to put our minds at rest. Graziers and others may be few in number, but the current financial assistance they enjoy can make the difference between them putting bread on the table or otherwise. That will be of great interest to the House this afternoon.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I was pleased to add my name to her Amendment 6 because, for me, food security is very much about the public good. Putting this amendment into the Bill, as we would like to see, would try to ensure that the Secretary of State is given powers to give financial assistance to underpin food security, health and well-being. This is a laudable objective, which should be placed in statute and recognised by government as such. It should therefore be placed in the Bill. Particularly at the time of this pandemic, people should be able to access not only cheap food but the food that they need to stay healthy, with the food system acting in relation to policy areas such as health, welfare and food production.

During Committee, many of us referred to the report published by our Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment. The report, Hungry for Change, was particularly comprehensive and found barriers at all levels of the food system that make it harder for people, particularly those living in poverty, to access a healthy and sustainable diet. The lack of a unifying government ambition and strategy on food has prevented interrelated issues such as hunger, health and sustainability being considered in parallel, meaning that opportunities have been missed to develop coherent policies that could bring about widespread change. Everyone should have access to a healthy and sustainable diet, hence the need to ensure that financial assistance will be given for adhering to this objective as a public good, and therefore get public money for public goods.

It is interesting what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said about the National Food Strategy: Part One by Henry Dimbleby. He gave evidence to our committee some months ago. Basically, I suppose he is saying that we were lucky that we did not face further challenges in relation to the pandemic. However, there is no doubt that we have all seen the problems and challenges in food supply chains over the past months. It is important that food security—and, yes, food insecurity—should be recognised as a qualification for future funding in the Bill. I am happy to support this amendment.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, I shall be brief as I do not have amendments in this little group. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Overall, access has been a phenomenal success although we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that that is not always the case. My concern is that the flip side of access should be responsibility on the part of those using the access. Over the lockdown period we saw regrettable behaviour by a few irresponsible people which unfortunately tarnished it for many.

I remember that when I was growing up there was something—I think there may be a later amendment on this—called the countryside code. It was on television. There were adverts saying simple things like, if you walk on the Pennine Way, which is near where I grew up, you close the gate if there is livestock in the field and that it is dangerous to enter a field where there is a calf, as the cow will defend it to the death. We have even seen a vet, who was walking their dog through a field, killed in the past two years. Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I cut my parliamentary teeth next door on the CROW Bill, so I bear the scars. We ran one or two very unsuccessful exercises as an opposition, I recall. How can the Government ensure that the flip side of access will be responsibility and that the costs will not be disproportionate to the enjoyment? I hope those using the access will behave in a responsible manner. We saw some malicious fires—It was not just fly-tipping; the materials were burned to get rid of them so they could not be traced—and the irresponsible use of barbeques. When there are crops growing in a field, you cannot have access until the crops have been taken out. We need responsible behaviour so that the cost will be proportionate to the enjoyment.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington. As somebody who over the years has supported access to the countryside, I fully understand and appreciate that. However, I come back to the principle, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the Minister, of the balance of competing rights: the right of people to enjoy the countryside, and their right to have access to it while at the same time respecting it. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I am well aware that during lockdown there was a certain despoliation of the countryside—a considerable level of littering and probably interference with farm animals. It comes back to the issue of getting the balance right. After all, access to the countryside can be a pretty disputatious issue if it is not managed properly.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]]

My Lords, I lend my support to this amendment. There is a certain attraction in having one objective, namely sustainability, in the context of the Fisheries Bill, as the primary objective. Part of my reasoning for this is that the House might wish to take a broader view and make sure that we come to the same view on the Fisheries Bill as we do, for example, when we come to consider the Environment Bill. We should not consider one in isolation from the other.

I was very taken by the Minister’s argument in Committee that in relation to objectives, there was a three-legged stool, whereby environmental, social and economic objectives should be given equal weight. There is a distinct attraction in singling out the environmental objective as the “prime fisheries objective”, as it says in the amendment. I know that it is a concern of Scottish fishermen and the Scottish Government in particular that we should look at the broader use of the marine environment, particularly in regard to renewables and other resources. There is an overwhelming attraction in having the sustainability objective as the prime objective. To put my mind at rest, I would be very interested to learn from the Minister, in the event of a contest between the three legs of the stool, how the Government would decide to prioritise between the economic, social and sustainability objectives.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I know that my local fishermen and those involved in the catching and processing sector want fishing to be a leader in the marine food system. They also want to ensure that people have access to good-quality products in the various fish species which they catch. I firmly believe that this can be achieved through the principle of environmental sustainability and the commitment to protect the natural environment. We are in no doubt that sustainable fishing means leaving enough fish in the ocean, respecting the habitats and ensuring that people who depend on fishing can maintain their livelihoods. It is a bit of a balancing act and I hope the Minister will address that issue.

The Bill provides a framework for future fisheries management. However, in some quarters, it is felt that the Bill will not achieve the Government’s aim of world-leading sustainable fisheries management because sustainable fisheries depend on a healthy marine environment. Environmental legislation has featured little in the fisheries and Brexit debates so far. Of particular relevance to a healthy marine environment are the European marine strategy framework directive, the birds directive, the habitats directive, the bathing waters directive and the water framework directive. Will the Minister outline how this will be achieved in the post-transition period, while at the same time protecting the local fishing industry?

It is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said when he moved the amendment, that fishing and aquacultural activity do not compromise environmental sustainability in the short or long term. This legislation presents us with a unique opportunity to ensure that environmental sustainability and the principle of sustainability take precedence in the various elements of sustainability and that sustainability is a prime fisheries objective. We should grasp that opportunity now, but be mindful of not ending up with legislation that is too rigid in the eyes of those in the fishing sector—both catching and processing—because we do not want to replicate the challenges that beset the fishing industry as a result of the common fisheries policy.

Rural Phone and Broadband Connectivity

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and to the Backbench Business Committee for securing this important debate. I often think there is a problem with people in rural areas being told to modernise and “get with the times” while being provided with none of the infrastructure or capacity needed to do so. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and of which I am a member, only this morning published our report on rural broadband and digital-only services, following closely behind the National Audit Office’s recent report. I will focus my remarks on the deficiencies in rural broadband provision and the impact on local business, farming communities and economic growth.

Members will be aware that responsibility for the roll-out of broadband access is devolved, with funding, to the devolved Administrations, as the Secretary of State noted in answer to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). However, we in Northern Ireland face many of the same problems, and unfortunately many of the same deficiencies, with the Government’s approach to tackling rural connectivity, because communications and connectivity are central components of this and have to be resolved. In common with others across the UK, we face the issues associated with there being only one service provider—BT.

As phase 1 of the rural broadband project is rolled out, in parallel with the Government’s “digital by default” strategy, we must urgently take stock of the process and act to correct failings in subsequent phases. “Digital by default” should not become “digital by diktat”, especially in cases where the support is simply not there. At the moment, “digital by default” is proceeding at a pace that the broadband connectivity strategy is struggling to keep up with.

A central criticism made in the Select Committee’s report is that current efforts to bring rural communities up to speed with basic broadband access fall short of the EU’s Europe 2020 target of having superfast broadband—30 Mb—for all by 2020, and the universal service commitment target of 2 Mb already looks out of step with consumer and business needs, even though, sadly, it probably will not be met.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that Germany has set a target of 50 Mb by 2020, and that the overall EU aspiration is to have 30 Mb by 2020, which means that our farmers’ competitors will have much faster broadband?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful intervention. Those countries are in direct competition with us, and people involved in rural businesses, particularly those in farming communities, will be at a disadvantage. The Government urgently need to address this issue in conjunction with BT.

Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to debate the implementation of the common agricultural policy in England. I welcome the Minister to his place and look forward to his comments.

Looking at the estimates for the forthcoming year, it appears that there will be a 2% increase in the overall budget against last year’s final position in the 2012-13 supplementary estimate. It appears that the £43 million increase in programme spend is largely due to the £124 million increase due to the transfer of the CAP disallowance funding from 2013-14 to 2014-15, in line with a Treasury agreement to allow flexibility in disallowance funding between years. There is also a £38.4 million increase to the Environment Agency’s flood management budget, which is extremely welcome and includes the £20 million announced in the 2014 Budget. It would be helpful if the Minister, in his response, reassured us that this is new money and that we are not being asked to make savings from, for example, the EA’s Yorkshire and Humber budget to transfer to other parts of the country. That leads to the question, since I understand that the National Audit Office is not in the position to provide figures for the debate, of what the projected figures for disallowance, and any quantifiable fines from the new CAP reform coming into effect next year, will be.

Against that backdrop, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was extremely pleased to consider the Department’s proposals. When we reported last year, we found much to like. We support the Government’s intention to raise the minimum level of claim threshold to five hectares, and to move money uphill. It is extremely important to state at the outset, however, that that money must go to active farmers and not simply to those who own the land. I would like to go into some detail in that regard, and the Minister cannot help but be aware of our particular concerns.

I would like to record my particular thanks to the previous Minister with responsibility for farming, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who was mindful of our concerns about areas where common land is prevalent. The Committee supports the Government’s position that England should adhere, as closely as possible, to the greening measures set out in the direct payments regulation, and not adopt a national certification scheme approach to greening. In our conclusions, we recommend that the Government maintain the 9% rate of transfer from pillar one to pillar two, and only move to 15% in 2017 if they can demonstrate that additional funds are required and that there is a clear benefit from the projects proposed. Clearly, a compromise of 12% is less than 15% and more than 9%. Perhaps the Minister will share the Government’s thinking in that regard, but we are pleased that the farming voice, and that of the Committee, was heard.

The Committee recommends that the Government take steps to ensure that those actively farming receive the direct payments and that those farmers who have responded to the call to diversify are not captured inadvertently on the “negative list” of business types ineligible for CAP funding under pillar one. We recommend that the Government update the commons registers and allow commoners associations to claim on behalf of all those who actively farm commons, so that the commons attract the share of pillar one money intended for them. I am aware of the position in North Yorkshire and Cumbria, and that the register will be updated from October. I believe that in County Durham and other parts the situation might be slightly different. My concern, which I am sure the Committee shares, is that the update to the register cannot take place before 1 January 2015, so a number of eligible claims will be excluded. What will happen to specific claims that are relevant and should be awarded, but may not be in place by 1 January 2015? It would be extremely helpful to put the minds of those farmers at rest.

The Committee supports the continuation of dual use under pillar two, but we think that Natural England must display a lot more rigour in arranging agri-environment contracts to ensure that payments under those schemes go to those who do the work and whose income is forgone. We make a specific recommendation that I hope will be echoed across the House this evening—that Natural England must be in a position to give advice. It should not be seen just as the policeman; it must be there to provide advice to farmers who seek it.

One of the central recommendations—it is certainly close to my heart, given the area that I represent—is that where there is a dispute between landowners, tenants and graziers, they must have access to a dispute resolution mechanism, set up along similar lines to that suggested by the tenancy reform industry group. In this day and age, it is worrying that those whose interests are sometimes ignored or trodden on should not have access to arbitration or a simple, swift dispute resolution mechanism along the lines we propose.

The Select Committee highlights the risks associated with the Government’s plans to develop a new single IT system for CAP funding through which all agencies would be able to administer the CAP. We do not wish to rehearse the grief from previous Administrations, but we are aware of recent history and we do not wish it to be repeated. An undertaking and some assurance from the Minister that that is not intended would be most welcome this evening.

We support the Government’s ambition to encourage and support as many people as possible to apply for CAP funding online, but that approach will simply not be available to some farmers. We received an assurance from a DEFRA Minister in our recent deliberations that a paper-based application process would be retained and that guidance will be provided in paper format in the run-up to the new scheme. It was thus of some concern when the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency, in giving evidence to the Committee in April this year, told us that there is absolutely no way that a paper format application can be made. That will send shockwaves through rural areas.

In my own constituency, I had a briefing from NYnet, the county council’s regime that is working in tandem with BT to try to roll out broadband in the area. By 2015-16, however, only 78% of my Thirsk, Malton and Filey constituency will be covered. That means that 22% of Thirsk, Malton and Filey will have no access—I repeat, no access at all—to fast-speed broadband. That 22% is where all the farming communities live, and it means that they will be severely disadvantaged. We are all familiar with those trying to apply online who find either no access or receive internet access that is so slow that all the information that has been entered can be lost just as people are trying to press the send button.

I say to the Minister that it is no comfort to farmers to be told that they should seek a satellite connection, as they simply cannot afford the prohibitive cost. I repeat the Committee’s recommendation to the Government that the BT money that is being rolled out—particularly the element coming from the BBC licence fee and the next round of licensing—should go to those rural communities across England that have the slowest speed and the weakest broadband coverage. We cannot expect the farming community to go digital by default from 1 January, yet have no access to broadband.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I, too, am a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Does the hon. Lady agree that throughout the UK and particularly in isolated rural areas, farmers are being marginalised because of lack of proper access to broadband, and that the Minister should use his good offices to make representations to BT about that problem? That issue was highlighted in our rural communities report. Does the hon. Lady further agree with me—on a compelling point that she made—that there is a need for proper guidance and form filling to be available in paper form?

[Miss McIntosh]

I thank the hon. Lady for her sterling contribution and excellent work on the Select Committee. I agree that this goes to the heart of how applications will be made from 1 January. We need clarification, because we cannot have the Minister saying one thing and the RPA saying another. If, as the RPA assured us, paper forms will not be available to submit, intensive tuition must be made available to those required to go digital from 1 January.

I want to raise one or two more points before putting some questions to the Minister. Another issue that the RPA shared with the Committee during the evidence session in April is that the reality will be less than was first hoped and more complex, even without the known unknowns such as the disallowance or fines. The cost to implement will, according to the RPA, be between 15% and 40% higher than previous schemes and, possibly, than previously thought. I shall ask the Minister a couple of direct questions about that.

The impact of flooding on farmland is another important issue that cannot be underestimated. Thousands of acres in Yorkshire and the Humber area were under water in 2012-13 and 2013-14, and thousands of acres were under water in Somerset and the south-western parts of Scotland at the time of flood incidents. The impact on the productivity of farming has been severe.

Will the Minister confirm whether farmers will be eligible for parts of the CAP, perhaps under pillar two, and the rural development fund, if not agri-monetary schemes, for storing water on land? How long would it take? Will such storage constitute reservoirs? When will DEFRA be in a position to publish the reservoir safety guidance, for which we have been waiting for some months, if not two years, because it will have a direct bearing on this matter?

Is it a source of disappointment to DEFRA that the CAP reforms have in many respects become more complex and less simple in an already complex system? Is it indeed the case that the CAP schemes are likely to be between 15% and 40% higher than previous schemes, and how has the Department budgeted for that in the estimates? Is the Department seeking to simplify and minimise the administrative cost in the new schemes, even against that backdrop?

Will the Minister respond to a question that has been asked by me and by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie)? In April, the RPA told our Committee:

“It is not actually possible to submit by paper to the new scheme, because of the way that it is structured.”

That completely contradicts what Ministers told us in their evidence. I repeat that farmers in areas with no broadband service face considerable problems. Will the Minister assure us that making access to CAP funding digital by default will not cause problems for farmers in areas that lack broadband coverage or significant speeds? Will he also assure us that the new digital support centres, which form an important part of the assisted digital service, will be accessible to all farmers, including hill farmers in relatively remote locations such as mine? Will he confirm that there will be a certain degree of privacy, and that farmers will not be expected to sit in a public place, such as a library, sharing commercially sensitive information with members of the public? The Committee believes that that would not be appropriate.

What makes the Minister think that the United Kingdom’s allocation of pillar two funds, which was much less than had been predicted, will not adversely affect the competitiveness of English farmers, especially in view of the fact that the Government now say that they will modulate 12% and that the proportion will increase to 15% if they believe that to be necessary? What will be the criteria for the move to a 15% rate of transfer from pillar one—direct payments—to support in the final two years of the pillar two rural development programmes? As I have said, we are pleased that the Government listened to the views of the farming community and those of the Committee before reaching their decision, but it would nevertheless be helpful to know what those criteria will be.

In June, the Secretary of State unveiled the details of how the Department would implement the greening rules in England, and referred to a specific problem relating to hedges. He said that the need to validate all claims and map digitally every hedge to EU standards might significantly increase the risk of delayed payments to those who adopted that option. What progress has DEFRA made in talking to banks to ensure that farmers who receive late payments as a consequence of the inclusion of hedges in ecological focus areas will be treated sympathetically? What guidance will it give farmers in regard to how hedges should be measured? I am sure that the Minister will want to allay our concerns, and those of farmers who have contacted us, about any change in the date on which farm payments will be made. What effect will the inclusion of hedges as an option enabling farmers to comply with EFA requirements have on disallowance risk? Will the Minister tell us how the Department will forecast what that risk will be?

During the evidence session, when asked about the level of disallowance that the agency expected to incur under the new CAP, the chief executive of the RPA told the Committee

“we would be doing incredibly well if we can hold disallowance to 2% of future scheme expenditure”,

which is calculated to be in the order of £40 million. From that, it would be reasonable to infer that the UK’s disallowance risk will be increased. We are at a disadvantage this evening because we are debating the subject without the figures from the National Audit Office.

The proposal to move money uphill is obviously welcome, but, as I said earlier, we must ensure that it is those who are actively farming, particularly on common land, who will benefit. DEFRA announced in April that farmers in England who operate within the moorland line would receive approximately £26 more per hectare in direct payments under the new CAP, an increase of about 90% in the moorland rate. That is great news, and a victory for commons, given that 96% of upland commons are above the moorland line. I repeat, however, that we must ensure that the money goes to the commons and the graziers. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to our request for a dispute resolution mechanism. It would be great if he could also assure us that commoners and graziers who wish to claim payments under the new CAP schemes will not be disadvantaged by the poor state of the registers in North Yorkshire, Cumbria, County Durham or elsewhere.

The new environmental management schemes which are open to all upland farmers are obviously welcome, but I hope the Minister will assure us that those farmers will not be left worse off overall by the changes introduced under the new scheme if, as a result of the comprehensive area assessment, the new environmental land management schemes are not open to farmers who are currently operating the uplands entry level stewardship schemes.

I would like to end by highlighting how current payments have worked least well: in respect of rewarding active farmers and graziers on the common land. It is crucial that those who are actively involved in the commons—those active farmers and graziers, or at least those who perform an active part in managing the commons—receive payment timeously, whereas people who do nothing with the commons should not receive a payment where that is not appropriate. Therefore, I urge the Minister to agree that lessons must be learned from how the existing direct payment scheme—the single payment scheme—was implemented in relation to common land, and to ensure that those who till the land on our behalf are indeed the beneficiaries of the new proposals.

With those comments and questions, we await with great interest the Minister’s response.