Postmasters with Overturned Convictions: Settlement Funds

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the advance sight of today’s Statement delivered earlier in the Commons. I know from previous questions and debate in your Lordships’ House—and he has said it again tonight—that he agrees in no uncertain terms that the sub-postmasters’ and postmistresses’ scandal is an absolute disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace on so many levels: financially, judicially, on a human level, on a systems failures level and, most worryingly, on a government oversight level.

We all know the details, but it is worth repeating a few of them. Hundreds of sub-postmasters were sacked or prosecuted in the space of 16 years and wrongfully labelled as thieves and fraudsters by the Post Office and our judicial system. Their lives were made hell, and all because of an IT glitch in the Post Office system that was known about.

What makes this even more shameful is the lengths the Post Office went to to hide it. The fact that the Post Office spent £32 million denying these claims and bullying those wrongly accused into false guilty pleas is bad enough, but what makes the story even worse is that we finally got to the truth of the case only when it made it to one of the highest courts of this land. Tens of millions of pounds of public money were spent trying to stop the case going forward. This meant, in effect, that nearly £100 million of taxpayers’ money was spent defending the indefensible and covering it up.

But even though all postmasters’ and postmistresses’ convictions—or, the question is: is it all of them?—have now been quashed, or are in the process of being quashed, and we are working through compensation, this has come too late for many: many postmasters and mistresses who were wrongly convicted and imprisoned, and some who have, sadly, passed away. So far, many postmasters and postmistresses have received only a fraction of their costs and expenses, as we have heard. This simply is not good enough, especially as there are cases of postmasters who have had to remortgage their houses and borrow money from family and friends to cover their legal costs.

I listened to the words of the Minister, and we do appreciate them, but the Government should do more. They should do all they can to make sure that all—I repeat, all—of those wrongly accused postmasters and postmistresses receive the compensation they are entitled to as soon as possible. So, as much as I welcome the Minister signing off on a compensation scheme, it is disappointing that it has taken to this point to get a scheme in place. I hope that today marks the start of the Government ramping up their efforts to get the postmasters and postmistresses the compensation they rightly deserve.

For me, one of the most alarming and shameful aspects of the whole scandal is the failure of our courts and judicial system. In all the cases where postmasters were wrongly found guilty, the system believed the computers. We knew that there was a possibility of glitches within those computers. There were 640 cases; how did this not raise alarm bells inside the Post Office or on the board? I hope that the inquiry—I apologise for not going through the terms; the Minister said that they have been set—will look at the legal failures that only compounded and exacerbated the problem. The idea that a machine was believed in so many cases is extremely worrying.

We all agree that lessons must be learned from this. The Horizon system contained bugs, errors and defects, according to the High Court. We should not use evidence based on faulty technical systems as evidence in court, especially when the evidence provided by the Horizon systems could not be backed up by any personal human evidence.

In conclusion, I welcome the Government’s new scheme to ensure that postmasters and mistresses rightly receive compensation. The Government are the owners of the Post Office and—as we have heard in the other place and in your Lordships’ House today—they are accepting responsibility for that and taking action to make things right. The truth is that, for too long, the Government sat on the sidelines and made little or no attempt to stop this scandal, which was ruining hundreds of people’s lives.

May I press the Minister on some key facts? Can he confirm that compensation is for everyone? Those involved in both civil and criminal prosecution processes against them should receive justice. The Minister used the word “quashed”, but there are many other cases outside out of that remit where individuals have been affected.

Secondly, can the Minister also confirm that any settlement will not affect the Post Office’s core funding? The Post Office has a job to do, and we would not like to see its core funding affected.

Thirdly—the Minister has dealt with this in the past and I appreciate his involvement and engagement on this—those involved in the initial mishandling and subsequent failures, as well as the cover-up, need to take responsibility for their actions and their fair share of the blame. Questions have been asked about previous chief executives and board members in your Lordships’ House, but can the Minister say whether any of those involved at board level or senior executive level have been rewarded? That in itself would be a slap in the face for many of those involved.

Finally, I cannot finish a speech on this scandal without putting on record our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and other Members across your Lordships’ House and in the other place, for their continued and unstinting drive for justice.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, until 2011, I was an elected Member of the Welsh Assembly. I dealt at that time with the cases of a number of sub-postmasters from Cardiff and the surrounding area. It struck me immediately when they got in touch with me as a group, that it was highly unlikely that so many sub-postmasters were crooks. Here were a group of people who were upright, respected citizens at the hub of their communities. It seemed ludicrous from the start, and it is a scandal that this has been allowed to go on so long in the face of mounting evidence of a problem with the whole thing.

Some 736 sub-postmasters and postmistresses—an average of one a week—were prosecuted. There was really bad faith on the part of the Post Office, in that it pretended to the individuals that they were alone. It hid from them the fact that there were hundreds of others. It took a long time for many of them to discover that they were in the company of a very large number of colleagues. Some of them went to prison, following convictions for false accounting and theft. Many were financially ruined and were shunned by their communities. Some went bankrupt as they tried to make up the shortfall in order to avoid prosecution. Some committed suicide, and many have died since, some of them worn out by the fight that they had to undertake.

It is quite clear that the original process for postmasters to gain recompense was flawed. Some 555 of them who joined in a group action were forced to settle because they ran out of money to continue with their action. They were paid far less in compensation than they had paid to the Post Office to balance their accounts. Does this Statement here today mean that those people will now have their cases reviewed and receive proper fairness in their compensation?

Can the Minister give us a timeframe for when those affected by the scandal will have their cases dealt with? Will it be 2022 when we see the end of this terrible process, or is it, in his estimation, going to take longer? Will the Government undertake to compensate victims for consequential loss as well as financial loss as part of the commitment today? Many of them suffered emotionally so badly, and their families suffered too.

There is a doubt about the extent of what the Government are promising. The Statement refers to postmasters with convictions. Many were accused and were not convicted but nevertheless suffered. Many of them personally made up the moneys supposedly owed by them to the Post Office, and they have evidence of that. Will those people receive just compensation?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their points. Almost uniquely in my time on the Front Bench, I agree with virtually everything that both noble Lords have said. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, said the situation was an absolute disgrace; the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred to it as a scandal. If anything, these are almost understatements when one considers the extent of the total travesty that has occurred. There is no party-political difference in these matters. This is not a recent scandal: it has gone on for decades under previous Labour Governments, the coalition Government and this Government. Obviously, we cannot go back and right the wrong of the clear, manifest injustice of the past, but we can provide adequate levels of compensation, and we are doing that.

I also want to join the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, in paying tribute to the parliamentarians on all sides who drew attention to this scandal. Hopefully, my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot will intervene shortly; he played a crucial role both in the other place and in here, as did a number of MPs on both sides, along with—to be fair—some campaigning journalists. Nick Wallis from the BBC played a major role in bringing it to account. Of course, there is a full inquiry going on now with statutory powers, which will hopefully get to the bottom of exactly what went wrong and who is responsible. My friend in the other place, Paul Scully, said that if there are any allegations against Ministers—either serving or previous—we will hold our hands up and acknowledge that mistakes have been made, which is only correct.

On the question of compensation, the funding we announced yesterday is for compensation for postmasters with convictions that have been quashed due to Horizon evidence being essential to their prosecution. There is a separate scheme—the historical shortfall scheme—that more than 2,500 people applied to for compensation, and the Post Office is working through those applications. The Government are ensuring that it is being pushed forward as quickly as possible. On the 555 who took the first court cases about Horizon against the Post Office, the settlement reached in 2019 was full and final. However, as the Minister for Postal Affairs said this afternoon in another place, it is important to acknowledge the work they have done in bringing the facts to light. The Minister for Postal Affairs has committed to continue to work with them to see what we can do.

On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, on whether the compensation will affect the Post Office’s core funding, the core funding to support its network is a totally separate matter from the funding for compensation that we are discussing today. That will proceed separately.

There is a limit to what I can say on the noble Lord’s point about whether those involved have been rewarded with senior jobs elsewhere, given that the inquiry is ongoing. However, he can refer to past comments I have made on that in this House. I certainly stand by my views on that point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about timescales for delivery of compensation. The Post Office proposes to follow a process of alternative dispute resolution to reach full and final settlements with postmasters. The details of that approach will need to be discussed and agreed between Post Office Ltd and individual postmasters and their representatives. There is therefore a limit to what I can say about that because I simply do not know the answer to that question. However, the need to get swift payments is why we have agreed the interim settlements, and we are going down the ADR process to try to get settlements as quickly as possible. I think those were the questions that I was asked.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

It was my intention to contribute to this debate briefly. Since the Minister has referred to the agreement, I probably ought to read it and digest it before venturing any additional comments.

I just point out to the Minister that the timing of all this is very odd. As far as I could have seen, and as I understood it in preparing for this debate, as of 9 November the Scottish Minister was not in the position of thinking that there was any agreement with the Government. He wrote to the convener of the Scottish Parliament on 9 November, set out the sequence of events stretching back to March, said that the Scottish Government, like the Welsh Government, were not in a position to agree legislative consent and gave the reasons he would not do so.

These amendments went down on 12 November, I think, so somewhere between 9 and 12 November the Government decided to do this thing. During the course of last week, they must have immediately entered into discussions with the devolved Administrations on the basis that they would give legislative consent. They have made clear all the way through that if it was not reserved, they supported the principle of the Bill and would give legislative consent to it. Now we are presented with this agreement and the consequences.

My noble friend is absolutely right; there are consequences. We had a debate last Wednesday about the role of the Chief Scientific Adviser in relation to the board, and the devolved Administrations have been looking for their chief scientific advisers to have the same status as the United Kingdom Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser. I think that is not what they are looking for now; it clearly would be unhelpful were that to be the case. It would have been helpful to have told us about that in the course of that debate last Wednesday and to have prefigured the fact that we come on to this at a later stage.

At the end of the day, they get money. Unless I am missing something, if you shift something from a reserved matter to a devolved competence, Barnett consequentials flow from that. What are they? How is the budget to be divided? Is it to be divided or is it going to be added to by way of the Barnett consequentials? I think we should be told that. Will that therefore mean that we anticipate that the other devolved Administrations will make grants to ARIA? Does this agreement suggest that there will be a pooled budget with grants made by the Secretary of State but that because of the nature of ARIA’s independence the grants will be in a global sum with few, if any, conditions attached to them and the devolved Administrations are agreeing to that? It begs questions. At the moment, I for one cannot debate the consequences of this set of changes because we do not have the information on which to do it. Even if we maybe let it through on the grounds that it helps to get the legislative consents through, I think we may have to return to some of the consequentials on Report.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, because he shares some of my concerns. I thank the Minister for communicating the information earlier today. Obviously I will read the actual agreement with great interest, but of course one accepts the noble Lord’s assurance that this agreement stands and will operate effectively.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raises a good point about the previous objections of the devolved Administrations, which now appear to have been withdrawn. At what date can we expect legislative consent Motions to come forward from the devolved Administrations?

I also have a detailed question. In an earlier debate, my noble friend Lord Fox made the point that having a purpose is not at war with the concept of independence for an organisation. I was thinking of that point as I read the paragraph in the Minister’s communication that says the agreement

“allows for the UK Government Chief Scientific Advisor, and scientific advisors or equivalent representatives on behalf of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to jointly communicate to ARIA the scientific challenges relevant to the policy priorities of their respective administrations. In keeping with ARIA’S autonomy, there will be no obligation for it to direct funding towards these issues.”

That worries me slightly. I am not arguing that ARIA should follow the separate views of the four nations, but if all four nations, via their scientific advisers, were to say to ARIA that one of the most important government priorities should be the road to zero carbon—I very much hope they would say that—would the Government really be happy for ARIA to invest in and champion a technology that increases CO₂ emissions? There are serious, fundamental points, rather than points of detail, that we still need to take into account on ARIA’s purpose and it working with the grain of government policy—not dotting every “i” and crossing every “t” but working with the grain of public policy.

Finally, I underline the concerns and questions about Barnett consequentials. I will not repeat the point; it is absolutely clear that this will have implications. I look forward to the expressed views of the devolved Administrations and the detail of the agreement when it becomes public. Given the information we have been given today, I am sure it will be possible for us to scrutinise it before Report.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It was slightly surprising to get this agreement so late in the day. Although I have seen that it exists, I cannot pretend that I have properly digested it or discussed it with colleagues in, for example, the Welsh Assembly. I would have been very keen to do that. It is very clear that a legislative consent Motion was not going to be forthcoming as things stood and that if the Government wanted ARIA to embark with support from the devolved Administrations they had to do something. There is now this agreement.

I would accept the Minister’s assurance, but can he clearly confirm that this agreement is not just his but has been reached with the devolved Administrations and that they are all fully signed up to it, before we allow this to go through? My life will not be worth living if I go back to my office and find that we have agreed to something that has not secured the full support of—to pick one at random—the Welsh Assembly. I would really appreciate it if the Minister could confirm that. Can he also speak to this issue of Barnett consequentials, which I had not considered would be part of the debate? How do the Government think this would or would not have any consequentials for funding for the devolved Administrations?

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th November 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

4: Schedule 1, page 6, line 21, at end insert—
“(ba) a representative of the Welsh Government,(bb) a representative of the Scottish Government,(bc) a representative of the Northern Ireland Executive, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require representation from the devolved administrations on ARIA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University. Given the current climate, I think I need to make it clear that it is an unremunerated role.

The amendments in this group deal, in one way or another, with the representation within ARIA of the interests of the nations and regions of the UK. My Amendment 4 seeks to gain some clarification from the Government—it is, of course, a probing amendment —as to the purposes and modus operandi of ARIA, and to make the point that because it will operate within areas of devolved competence, it must listen to the voices of the devolved nations.

As it stands, it is difficult to get a handle on exactly how ARIA will operate. The list of things it is able to do is comprehensive. It can take an equity stake, carry out its own lab work, contract with an academic or industry team, create prototypes, market products, convene conferences, operate outside the UK—and a whole lot more. It is to be granted great freedom and there is, as noble Lords have said, an emphasis on lack of bureaucracy. It is to be ambitious and tolerant of failure.

In the debate in the other place, Greg Clark MP, chair of the Science and Technology Committee, complained that it was not clear whether the emphasis would be on “blue-sky research” or whether it would turn existing ideas into “practical applications”. Clause 2(6) says:

“ARIA must have regard to the desirability of … contributing to economic growth, or an economic benefit, in the United Kingdom”


and

“improving the quality of life in the United Kingdom (or in the United Kingdom and elsewhere)”.

These are worthy thoughts but there is no obligation to take account of the nations and regions of the UK.

The funding of ARIA directly by the UK Government impacts on devolved powers in relation to higher education and economic development. The Bill creates a new reservation in respect of research and innovation. I accept that this is not altogether new, because there is already a reservation for UKRI, and there is indeed great strength in not having research silos. Partnership is vital, both within and across the UK and internationally: partnership between universities—where most blue-sky research originates—and between universities and commercial companies, which exploit that research. To amend the Bill to spell out that there must also be partnership between the UK Government and the devolved Governments will simply strengthen ARIA.

--- Later in debate ---

For these reasons, I hope that, while I have made the Government’s commitment to reducing regional inequality clear, noble Lords will understand that these amendments would be misdirected, however well intentioned, and that they might have a detrimental effect on ARIA’s ability to fulfil its unique objectives. On the original point of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about higher education accounting and finances, it is slightly outside the remit of this discussion, but I commit to write to her in due course. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that her amendments are not needed.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I very much thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that the Welsh Government indicated their concern at the current proposed structures—before the Government tabled their amendments—at the creation of a new reservation without mandated representation on ARIA’s governance. The Scottish Government also indicated that they are unlikely to grant a legislative consent Motion unless they have representation. Clearly, the Government have done a lot of work since these amendments were tabled. There are amendments to which I assume we will come next week, unless we work very fast this evening, and the current view of the Scottish and Welsh Governments will become clearer then.

I thank the Minister for the details she supplied. We will obviously know more about the MoU before Report. The amendments in this group have, however, enabled us to discuss an important set of issues. It is important that we do not confuse having a concern across the regions and nations with the idea that one would expect there to be growth everywhere. However, that highlights the need for this body, especially if it is a small body, not to be placed in the usual place with the usual suspects. It has a relatively modest amount of money to spend in the big scheme of things—it sounds like an awful lot of money, but in the big scheme of things, it will not transform things unless it is very well spent.

If the body is well placed and carefully placed, its location alone will bring kudos to that area. However, it is not precisely about where it is placed. It is about how it spends its money—which universities it invests its money in and which companies it establishes or invests in and where they are placed. That is very important indeed if the Government are going to fulfil their promises.

I will, of course, withdraw the amendment. I very much hope that the discussion we have had means that I will not have to bring back a version of it on Report. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that “representative” is not the best term but it means that it represents an input for the devolved Administrations. That is what I was trying to indicate rather than that anyone on that body would behave as a delegated representative. With that, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I do not normally intervene where devolved matters are concerned but I was so surprised to see the amendments tabled in this group that I felt I had to make some observations.

To start with Amendment 10 and Clause 7, I was very critical of Clause 7 in Committee, in that it was setting up an advice centre which I could not see the real need for. Nevertheless, if one is going to have one, it should be complete and accurate; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has referred to that. The existing advice centre under EU law, which will be migrated into the one under this Bill, is certainly not complete and is therefore not accurate.

While I believe that the arrangements being made would benefit from scrutiny, I am not sure what the purpose of adding on a consent mechanism would be. The arrangements should be between BEIS and whoever is providing this advice centre to have complete and accurate information, and I do not think anybody needs to consent to that at all, because that is perfectly obvious. While I do not see any need to have that additional mechanism, it is good to have scrutiny on the centre’s input, but that can be done by informal means; it does not need the seeking and giving of consent.

Similarly, in the case of Amendment 10A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, I could not see anything in Clause 9 which could possibly be incompatible with a common framework agreement for professional services, if and when one emerged. All it says is that if somebody in one part of the United Kingdom wishes to practice in another part of the United Kingdom, the regulators in the two parts have to give each other information about that individual. It seems that there would never be any circumstances, under any form of common framework, where that would not be an essential part of it.

Lastly, on Clause 14 and Amendment 14, I was also mystified, because Clause 14 seems to respect the devolution settlements. It specifically creates the national authority’s powers in relation to things that are within the devolution settlements, so I could not see what would be added by the arrangements that Amendment 14 seeks. I could not think of any tangible, practical reason for the devolved Administrations to want to get involved in those areas in the way in which this is drafted. For me, this is something of a mystification. It may be partly explained by the bad feeling left by the internal market Act, but I genuinely do not see an issue of substance here that noble Lords should be getting excited about.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness put her finger on it when she referred to the bad feeling engendered by the internal market Act. That has undermined confidence between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. But there are also good, practical reasons why they need to be consulted. I support these amendments because it is absolutely crucial that, at the centre of this, the assistance centre truly represents the whole of the UK and can provide accurate information.

The history of this Bill is that the whole thing is a lot more complex than the UK Government originally thought. I think that the Minister would acknowledge that. The noble Baroness has played her part in pointing that out to the Government. It is not just a courtesy to seek consent. Things are different in different parts of the UK. I speak in this debate from the perspective of Wales, where our difference is partly underlined by language issues of significance. If you are looking at the clinical professions, or teaching, language is important in the delivery of those qualifications.

However, there is a key issue here in the interaction between this Bill and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, which was designed to undercut devolved powers and which, despite some amendments, still has the power to do so. The UK Government deal internationally with what I am sure they see as the interests of the whole of the UK but, to give one example, the international trade deal with New Zealand provoked dismay in Wales because of the impact that it will have on Welsh sheep farmers. That may not be of direct relevance to this Bill, but it underlines the fact that, just because the UK Government are intending that it should benefit the UK, that does not mean that it will actually benefit the whole of the UK. The same applies with professional qualifications and the terms in which there could be an impact from an international trade deal on those qualifications.

The lack of legislative consent Motions is a symptom of the problem. Common frameworks are there and should be there to ensure harmonious working, but those of us speaking in this debate who are members of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, my noble friend Lord Bruce and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who was here earlier—know that common frameworks have been applied so far in a fairly haphazard manner in some situations, and therefore we cannot entirely rely on them yet. I am very pleased to see the amendments that relate to them, because that reinforces their importance in improving relationships between the Governments within the United Kingdom. Therefore, I support these amendments.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by saying a personal thank you to my noble friend Lady Hayter for her wonderful support over the past few months. We go back many years and we have worked on some very difficult issues, so it has been a great pleasure. I thank my noble friend Lord Kennedy for stepping in as a result of the very positive news of my noble friend Lady Hayter moving on to pastures new. I know that she will continue to bring all her enormous knowledge to bear.

I also thank the Minister for his unfailing patience and his recognition of the complexities of this Bill that were not fully appreciated when it first came forward for our consideration. There have been some extraordinary contributions from all sides of the House that exposed the original drafting, which have been incredibly important.

Her Majesty’s Opposition believe that a role for the devolved authorities has been overlooked in the drafting of this Bill and recognise that there is strong concern from them, as we have heard in this debate, about the legislation. Perhaps it is not an enormous surprise, given the Government’s track record, because the experience of the devolved Administrations is that they have been excluded too many times, going right back to the Brexit negotiations, as we have heard, and the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, with UK powers imposed over devolved competences. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said very clearly something which struck home very forcefully: there is a legacy of suspicion. We would all do very well to remember that.

We also remember when it came to light that the devolved authorities only saw this Bill a week before it was published. Either the Government forgot about them or something else was happening, but again that growing suspicion has permeated the discussions that we have had throughout.

The importance of their engagement was underlined in the Government’s factsheets on the Bill, which were published at the end of last week and stated that professional qualifications and experience can vary across the four nations—surely in itself a reason for this concern. As we have heard, the concern is shared across the House, as demonstrated by Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Bruce, which we strongly support.

This was the formula for the engagement of the devolved authorities, which the Government accepted with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. It would oblige the Minister to seek the consent of the devolved authorities but would allow them to proceed, albeit with a published explanation if no consent is received within a month. It is not an absolute veto, but it starts on the assumption of working towards consent. Her Majesty’s Opposition recognise the strength of feeling from the devolved authorities and, again, as has been so eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that is why we have tabled Amendment 14, which would apply this consult, seek and UK Government backstop formula to all regulation-making powers in the Bill.

Why are the Government against taking this approach with this Bill, which they accepted in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill less than a year ago? Surely at the very least we need some consistency across post-Brexit legislation. Amendment 10A also seeks to ensure that the Bill does not impact on the development of a common framework on this issue. Can the Minister confirm that this will be established and in operation by the end of the year? As I understand it, there is still some confusion about departmental responsibilities on common frameworks post reshuffle, so can he also confirm which Minister and department are now responsible for them? We accept that the mood of the House has, with some exceptions, coalesced around Amendment 10, and we strongly support it, as I have said.

I would like to hear clear commitments from the Minister that the Government remain committed, first, to continuing engagement with the devolved authorities to find a way through on this issue, and, secondly, to amending the Bill as appropriate to reflect the devolved authorities’ concerns. As the Bill starts here in the Lords, the Government have ample time to bring forward amendments in the other place. If the Minister is not able to say this today, I will seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 14. I will be listening very closely to his reply.

Competition Act 1998 (Coronavirus) (Public Policy Exclusions) (Revocations) Order 2021

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I decided to put down this Motion to Regret because it provides an opportunity for us to discuss the role of competition in ferry services. Does it incentivise operators to compete? Can they compete? Is there a role for the competition commission or some other body, because there is also a problem of a lack of transparency? This regulation relates to the competition exclusion for the Isle of Wight ferries during the Covid epidemic. That has now been, quite rightly, removed, but many of us can wonder what the difference is between when the regulation was in force and now, when it is not. I want to address my remarks both to the Isle of Wight services and to the Isles of Scilly services, and I declare an interest, as I live there.

The ferries kept going during the Covid-19 restrictions, thanks to grants from the Government to make up for the lack of passengers. I think they are all very grateful for that. For the ferry routes to these two islands, the total grant was about £10 million, but we do not know which company received it and what it did with it. They were not allowed to compete with each other on the Isle of Wight, while they now are, but I again question what changes have occurred since they were allowed to compete. Does competition, therefore, work in the ferry sector to give customers, passengers and freight a reasonable service at affordable prices? It is quite important for the people who live on these islands. Do they ever really compete, or is something else required to look after the customers’ interests?

We do not know whether the companies make excessive profits, but there is quite a lot of evidence that some of them fail in providing lifeline services for those who need urgent transport, particularly for the NHS. It is true to say that successive Governments have recognised the particular difficulties caused to both businesses and social services, as well as to education services, by barriers imposed on these communities. It is not, perhaps, surprising that schools on the Isle of Wight have long been at the bottom of the league table, with Ofsted constantly imploring improvements. There is no reason why it should be that way, but apparently it is.

Councillor Phil Jordan, who is the Cabinet member for transport on the Isle of Wight Council, has said:

“We have great concerns over the transparency of the operational factors of ferry companies that, in turn, lead to commercial decisions that take little account of the lifeline service the ferry operators provide, or the human cost involved with such commercial decisions.”


There is a lot of evidence that patients going to the mainland for NHS treatment, such as cancer intervention, are given absolutely no priority on some ferries. Quite apart from the costs involved, there is evidence that patients returning from NHS treatment—anaesthetics or invasive cancer treatment, I am told—are not given priority to board ferries. Sometimes, they are refused travel or sent to a later ferry. In other words, as they say colloquially, the sick are being bumped from travel.

The local MP, Bob Seely, has voiced support for a public service order, and the Isle of Wight Council has committed in its corporate plan to achieving a public service order on the Solent ferry operators. We do not know much; perhaps the Minister can tell us where that has got to.

It is the same for the Isles of Scilly. It is a very infrequent ferry service. Loading and baggage handling are, frankly, Victorian. There is no passenger shelter and freight charges are double those of the Scottish equivalent, which are already pretty high. It is good that the council has been awarded £48 million in a levelling-up fund announced by the Chancellor last week for two ferries between Penzance and St Mary’s. The trouble is that this is intended to perpetuate the inefficient, bad services, when they could be run with one ro-ro ship costing half that, about £22 million. I have told them that. The taxpayer is wasting about £19 million. When he responds, can the Minister tell me whether the Government required the council to seek competitive quotes for the new ship and services or ownership of these vessels? Is he happy that this £48 million will perpetuate what I think is an inefficient and expensive monopoly, to the detriment of the islanders—forget about the company?

We have two monopolies to the Isle of Wight and one to Scilly, providing what the Government seem to agree are lifeline services. There is not much monitoring going on as to whether these are effective. You have to ask what customers can do when these services are seen to be failing. You can ask the carrier, but it will say that it is not interested. You can ask the Department for Transport—we do not have a Transport Minister responding tonight, so let us say the Government—which will say that these are commercial services that they cannot influence. Customers may then ask what the remedies are if companies are seen to fail. After all, rail services are tightly controlled, as are many bus services, and there is generally competition for air travel in most places. Where is the community bit? What about affordability, service quality and frequency, for the NHS and other emergency services?

I will give the House a couple of examples. In Scotland, something called a road equivalent tariff is generally applied on fares and charges. To Islay, this is 29 pence per mile, while to Scilly it is £1.62 per mile, which is five times higher. For the Isle of Wight, on the Southampton to Cowes route, it is 96 pence per mile, which is three times higher. The train fares in the UK are very similar, between 10 pence and 30 pence per mile. As I said, the freight charges to Scilly are double those to Islay. This is not good for the economy. Unlike rail, the ferry fares are not regulated. There is no transparency about the ferry company costs, what might be a reasonable profit or the use of the Covid-related grant. What can people do? Should they ask the carrier or the department?

It is interesting that, over 10 years ago now in 2009, the OFT undertook a market study into the Isle of Wight services and the lack of transparency of their operations. Three operators wrote to the OFT offering increased transparency. One of them, Red Funnel, offered to publish clear information on performance, price per passenger, costs, capacity utilisation, customer satisfaction, reliability, punctuality and market growth. In spite of these commitments, which you might call solemn and binding, 12 years later, none of this has been done by Red Funnel or any of the other operators.

The same applies for the Isles of Scilly. It is a monopoly and there is no such information. There seems to be no pressure on operators to reduce costs or improve services. Where does the pressure come from? It could come from competition or from a government agency. After all, the Government control rail fares.

I do not think that the competition on the Isle of Wight works properly and, as I said, on the Isles of Scilly, the council has refused to commit to put the operations in the levelling-up fund bid out to competitive tender. Why? This failure of competition and governance is clearly having an adverse effect on the economy. Scotland recognises this, but in England I think the Government hope it is all going to go away.

I would like to hear the Minister’s response to the proposal that there needs to be some kind of regulatory oversight to make sure that the companies behave and provide the lifeline services to which they have committed themselves. It is a light touch role but could be done. We have the Office of Rail and Road for the railways and part of the road network; perhaps the remit of that could be expanded to cover ferry services. Maybe it is time for the CMA to be given a remit to examine these issues afresh and, most importantly, keep them under regular surveillance. In conclusion, I believe that some urgent action is required to make competition work for the benefit of consumers. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling this Motion to Regret. I agree with almost everything he said. Of course, there are contrasting models in operation for ferry services around the UK, from market-based models to very much more subsidised models. Those complaining about the Solent services often look to other services for comparison, but the problem is that no two islands are really the same. People are searching for a model which provides the guarantee of service that the isolation of many UK islands requires but also an incentive for efficiency.

To look at a comparison of the islands, let us take Lewis off the west coast of Scotland as an example. Lewis is 130 miles off the mainland. It is about 350 miles from Edinburgh and about 600 miles from London. In contrast, the Isle of Wight is only 14 miles from Portsmouth and there is a ferry service which takes only 45 minutes. There is no regular air service, but there does not need to be one because of the short distances. The Isles of Scilly, whose service I know relatively well, are 35 miles off the coast. There is a sea crossing which is only for those with strong nerves and a strong stomach. It takes nearly three hours on what is a very elderly boat. I was therefore delighted to hear that there is funding to help deal with this situation. In reality, people go backwards and forwards to the Isle of Wight on a daily basis as commuters. You are not a daily commuter on a regular basis on the “Scillonian”, but of course people do go back and forth in a day to take up medical appointments. The vast majority of medical services are provided on the mainland.

We need a nuanced approach. Even in good times, islanders in general across the UK complain about their connectivity. There is, and rightly so, an emphasis on the importance of lifeline services. The SI to which this Motion to Regret relates suspended some elements of the Competition Act in relation to the Solent ferry services. There are three companies involved—one hovercraft service and two ferry services—so there is an element of competition. However, of course, during the pandemic they were apparently down to 10% of the normal passenger numbers and obviously it was not commercially viable. Yet it was obvious that essential services had to continue—freight as well as lifeline services—in terms of life-saving services.

Net Zero Strategy and Heat and Buildings Strategy

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I would like to give the noble Lord a direct answer: it is genuinely impossible to say, at the moment. Let me explain why. It is clear that hydrogen will play a major role in our economy. It will probably contribute to some heating, but I have given my view based on current technology. It is perfectly possible to use hydrogen for heating and gas boilers; the technology exists now—I have seen it. Two houses have been built our area—for the benefit of the right reverend Prelate—of Gateshead—which are entirely hydrogen-fuelled. They have hydrogen boilers, hydrogen hobs and hydrogen gas fires. They work perfectly well — I have cooked an egg on a hydrogen hob.

The question is where we get the hydrogen from. There are two ways of producing it: either from natural gas through carbon capture storage for blue hydrogen, or through electrolysis to produce green hydrogen. You then have to ask yourself the question: does it make sense to use green electricity to generate hydrogen to heat homes, or is it more sensible just to use electricity in the first place to heat the home through a heat pump? That is a question about thermodynamics and conversion and there will be different solutions in different places.

We can say with certainty that the future of home heating will almost certainly be taken over by three technologies: electrification through heat pumps; a greater use of heat networks, for which we have allocated funding; and a certain percentage from hydrogen. The reason we have announced our hydrogen strategy, are funding lots of research programmes and are consulting on a market mechanism to generate large amounts of hydrogen is to try to kick-start the market—to get it going and to bring in private sector investment and ingenuity. This will help to generate large amounts of hydrogen—cheaply, we hope. But we do not yet know to what extent the technology will develop, how much we will be able to produce at reasonable cost, and whether it will be suitable for use in home heating or whether it will be more sensible to use it in industrial processes. We have a multi-pronged strategy. As soon as we have more information, I will be sure to update the noble Lord.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

The Government have announced that new-build housing will have charging points for electric vehicles. But the Minister will know that many houses and much other accommodation do not have access to driveways or sufficient space for such points. People will rely increasingly on electric vehicle charging points in public places. Their rollout has been very slow, and those that exist are in a very unreliable condition. More than two years ago, legislation came to this House and was passed which gave the Government considerable powers to improve their availability by making public charging points easier to use and easier to pay for and to ensure that they were better maintained. That legislation has not been implemented. Why not?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I believe that it has been implemented. As I said earlier, we have allocated £620 million for vehicle grants and for further funding for local EV infrastructure. This is being rolled out across the whole country. Many local authorities are installing EV charging points in lamp posts, in publicly accessible areas. Grants are available for the installation of electric charge points in the home. Many are being rolled out in service stations and petrol stations. The infrastructure is being rolled out. I understand that the noble Baroness is impatient for it to be done faster, but it is happening.

Net-zero Carbon Emissions: Behaviour Change

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness for bringing this topic to the Chamber this afternoon and for her excellent speech.

Up to now, most of the adaptations and changes required to reduce carbon emissions have been done to us, or for us, by the Government or have been as a result of business decisions. For example, all the changes in the means of production for energy have been done for us. We have hardly been aware of those changes—unless, of course, like me, noble Lords have solar panels on their roof. Only now are we starting to get to the more difficult bits, such as starting to change how we heat our homes.

There are exceptions. For example, we have adapted to paying for plastic bags; as a result, we use far fewer of them. Most of us could talk at length about local recycling schemes, the differences between them and the benefits of some of them. However, the lessons of those two examples are that it takes a long time to bed in change in our behaviour. We face a climate emergency. The big question is: is 2050 early enough for net zero? There is real doubt about that. The answer? Probably not. The longer it takes to start, the more radical the changes must be.

In the time I have, I will concentrate on transport because it is the single biggest sector for CO₂ emissions. It is also the only sector where, in recent decades, emissions have not fallen despite technological improvements. Earlier this summer, the Government produced a welcome transport decarbonisation plan. Unfortunately, it started with a complete fallacy. It said that we can carry on doing everything we currently do and that technology will make the changes we need to reach net zero. This argument was even applied to aviation.

The problem with transport is that we all want to travel more, not less. The pandemic has given us pause for thought and demonstrated that a lot of our travel can be avoided. During the pandemic, there was a lot of talk about finding new, healthy and environmentally friendly ways in which to live and work. Now that the Government think the pandemic is over, their rhetoric has immediately pressed us to get back to the office despite the fact that we have demonstrated that we can do a great deal of work without being in the office. Fortunately, many employers and employees are resisting this, but trains, the Tube and buses are crowded again and our roads are very congested, with traffic volumes up to and beyond pre-pandemic levels because people are now reluctant to use public transport. We were beginning to see the switch to public transport, but that has regressed.

There is a saying: “Never waste a crisis.” The danger is that the Government will waste this one by not seizing the moment and not capitalising on the pause that the pandemic created. There is every reason to review, for example, business travel because Zoom can do much of it without the same waste of time or CO₂. There are major opportunities for change, but we are also at a dangerous point because we are no longer bound to the EU where the rules have set world standards for so long. We must not allow ourselves to slide back from that.

Specifically, there is the problem of time lag. Vehicles manufactured today will still be on our roads in 20 years’ time. The time lag is even greater for buses, planes and ships. The Government need to influence what we buy and use now. We are buying enormous modern SUVs. The Government also need to influence how we drive them. We need information so that we understand all the implications of our behaviour. All social revolution needs this; it needed it for drink-driving, seatbelt-wearing and smoking. We must have government information backed up with regulations to give us a nudge. We need taxation to encourage us not to buy SUVs, to ensure that aviation tax is reformed and to discourage frequent flyers. We need regulation change; for example, to encourage us to drive more slowly.

We face an emergency, and emergencies require urgency. The rain is falling on the ice caps now. Belgium as well as Bangladesh face people dying in flash floods. It is not enough to plan for tomorrow. The Government need to plan for today, utilise the expertise of our universities, our scientists and throughout the Civil Service, and ensure that we have an effective public debate.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I start by apologising to the House, as I wrongly said previously that nursing associates are not regulated. Actually, the Nursing and Midwifery Council now holds the register of those who meet those criteria.

In moving Amendment 56A, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd for his support. We have already had a discussion about exactly which regulators are affected by this Bill. There are two regulating bodies based in Wales that this legislation would affect: the Education Workforce Council and Social Care Wales. There is no valid reason whatever that the Westminster Government should have a say over these bodies, as they operate in wholly devolved areas.

The letter previously referred to, which was sent by the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Noakes, concerning the professions and regulators within scope of the Bill, exemplifies a key concern that my amendment tries to address. The letter failed to clarify that the Education Workforce Council is a Wales-only regulator, but also failed even to mention Social Care Wales. This was clearly a mistake, as we have now heard, and I hope it has been corrected, but it also flags a wider issue: Wales and Welsh bodies are clearly an afterthought for this Government when considering this Bill.

In its current state, I fail to see how the Welsh Government would recommend that the Senedd consent to the Bill, unless a number of issues are satisfactorily resolved. Clauses 1, 3 to 6, 8 and 10 confer various regulation-making powers for different purposes on the “appropriate national authority”. Of particular and cross-cutting concern to all these clauses is the way “appropriate national authority” has been defined by Clause 14. This means that the powers of the Welsh Ministers, along with those of the other devolved Governments, are exercisable concurrently by the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor. Hence, the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor could make provision, through regulations, on matters that fall within devolved competence.

In addition, as we have heard, Clause 13 contains provisions that mean that the powers to make regulations, conferred by Clauses 1 to 6, include powers to modify primary legislation, such as UK Acts of Parliament and Senedd Acts, as well as secondary legislation. The combination of concurrent functions and Henry VIII powers means that the Secretary of State could exercise these regulation-making powers to amend Senedd Acts and regulations made by Welsh Ministers. While Ministers may claim they do not intend to use these concurrent powers in areas of devolved competence, the wording of the Bill does not reflect this sentiment. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor would be able to exercise these powers in devolved areas without requiring any consultation with, or consent from, Welsh Ministers. That is clearly unacceptable.

Clause 14(5) requires Welsh Ministers, when exercising the regulation-making powers in the Bill, to obtain the consent of a Minister of the Crown when such regulations would, if made in an Act of the Senedd, require the Minister of the Crown to consent under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006. This effectively imports the restrictions imposed by paragraphs 8 to 11 of Schedule 7B to the 2006 Act into the regulation-making process. This restriction is unique to Welsh Ministers’ powers; Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers are not subject to a corresponding restriction. However, it is not without precedent—a similar restriction was imposed by the Fisheries Act 2020.

What does this mean in practice? It means that the Welsh Ministers would, when making regulations using the powers conferred by this Bill, need to obtain the consent of a Minister of the Crown in certain circumstances, including where, for example, the regulations modified or removed a function exercisable by a reserved authority. Further, the removal of this provision via a future Act of the Senedd would also engage the Minister of the Crown’s consent requirements. Again, this is not a suitable state of affairs. Therefore, I must question whether some of these powers are even necessary.

For example, the power conferred by Clause 1 enables the “appropriate national authority” to make regulations that require specified regulators to consider and assess whether qualifications and experience gained outside the UK should be treated as if they were specified UK qualifications for the purposes of practising that profession in the UK. Both the Education Workforce Council and Social Care Wales already have powers enshrined by Welsh Ministers in Welsh legislation to recognise international qualifications and determine whether they are equivalent to UK qualifications, so I ask the Minister why the Bill now gives powers to override this. The solution, I suggest, is simply to accept my amendment.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I shall take a moment to express my concern about the chaotic state of this Bill. I will not waste more of the time of this House by repeating what the noble Baroness said, but the omission of the social care regulator from the Minister’s letter was such an obvious error. I cannot help thinking that a lot of work still needs to be done to make this Bill ready to pass into legislation.

As the noble Baroness has said, as the Bill is drafted, the regulator confers a suite of regulation-making powers on the appropriate national authority. Welsh Ministers are that authority for the devolved professions and have a right to be fully recognised as that, not to have to ask for permission from the UK Government nor to have their existing powers overridden by this legislation. According to the Bill, those powers are to be exercised concurrently with the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, who could legislate in devolved areas and, as the Bill stands, would not need the consent of Welsh Ministers on those regulations.

It is worth adding that the situation in Wales is always slightly more complex, because of the nature of Welsh devolution; it started from a bad place, has moved forward significantly in gaining clarity and logic, but is not 100% there yet. There are areas where Welsh Ministers have some Executive powers that are not reflected in the legislative powers of the Senedd, and that has to be recognised.

The reassurance that we received from the noble Lord the Minister—I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, will respond to this group of amendments—that the power to override Welsh Ministers would not normally be taken is of no great reassurance to us, because the UK Government have said that in the past and then overridden the decision of the Senedd or the wishes of Welsh government Ministers.

This is a serious issue for the Government and this Bill. I warn them that, as the Bill stands, the Government will not get consent from the devolved Administrations or the Senedd in Wales. They have to take that into account as, to get this on to the statute book, they must start by overriding Welsh Ministers and Senedd powers.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the issue on which I speak will be brief and parallels what I said earlier on Clause 13. It is important to keep this Bill as defined as possible. This amendment tries to do that by forcing the Government to explain why the relatively simple issues on Wales cannot be dealt with in the Bill. If there is a real need for the consent of Ministers of the Crown for Welsh Ministers to exercise powers, can a reason be given?

As the Minister knows from her own experience, the Welsh devolution settlement is extremely complicated, and all this part of the Bill does is make it even more complicated again. I can see no reason why the consent of Ministers of the Crown is required for just two regulators in Wales. Therefore, if there is no real need for these powers, this clause should not be in the Bill. Otherwise, I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I hope the Government can explain why this clause is needed and, if there is no satisfactory explanation, remove it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

58: Clause 15, page 11, leave out lines 10 to 13
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean all regulations made under the Act are subject to the affirmative procedure.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 58 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. This is about as modest an amendment as one could possibly imagine. It simply requires that all regulations that flow from the Bill are made by the affirmative procedure. The Government have acknowledged that most of the substantive changes to the law envisaged by the Bill are to be made by delegated powers.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has drawn our attention to what it sees as significant problems with the Bill in respect of the constitutional principles involved. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, drew our attention to this issue earlier in our debates this afternoon. For instance, the DPRRC draws attention to the Henry VIII power in Clause 1, which gives the Government power to amend primary legislation to make provision about a wide range of issues, including details of the approach to assessing applications from overseas applicants, guidance to regulators on how to assess them, fees to be paid and appeals.

The Government’s excuse is that these changes are to be demand-led, but the DPRRC does not regard that as a justification for Henry VIII powers. Paragraph 20 of its report points out that when those powers will be executed by affirmative procedure, that in itself will provide minimal scrutiny. Paragraph 23 points out that

“Ministers will have no duty to consult before making regulations.”

Clause 3 of the Bill gives Ministers powers to make regulations in connection with the implementation of international recognition agreements—another Henry VIII power and, this time, not subject to any conditions. We can already see the reality of this principle with the very broad agreement made between the UK and Australia in the recent trade deal, which specifies mutual recognition of professional qualifications in some detail.

The Constitution Committee makes the point that there is a long-standing constitutional convention that international agreements that change UK law require an Act of Parliament, so the DPRRC considers that Clause 3 should be removed from the Bill. Clause 4 also contains a Henry VIII power on authorising a regulator to recognise an overseas regulator. I go through this because I am pointing out that, in the face of this barrage of criticism from those in this House whose job is to safeguard the constitutional integrity of the UK, it is a very small request in this amendment that the blizzard of regulations that we can expect to flow from this Bill should be made by the affirmative procedure.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest, having in prior years been a long-standing member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that its report on the Bill and the use of secondary legislation makes telling and worrying reading. Before I cover that, I place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Grimstone for his response to my speech earlier and the constructive way in which he handled that. Also, it is important for the Committee to place on record that he has sought to catch the mood of the House rather than to counter it by speaking “note rote”. That is a notable parliamentary and diplomatic skill, and he has done it more capably than many Ministers that I have heard in nearly 40 years in both Houses. However, as he knows, that does not negate the challenges that the Government face with this Bill on its passage through the House.

Most of the substantive changes to this Bill are envisaged to be undertaken by the Executive. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, there is a creeping growth of secondary legislation. Some of it is understood in the context of the huge number of statutory instruments following Brexit, but both Houses need to review and reverse that process, otherwise we will be in a situation where the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature is out of kilter. Parliament must be consulted. My noble friend Lord Grimstone said that many of the Bill’s aspects would be under rigorous scrutiny with interested parties; it is even more important that they are under rigorous scrutiny with Parliament.

The noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Patel, when talking about Henry VIII powers, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, on the lack of detailed parliamentary scrutiny, made eloquent contributions to what is relevant not only to the very light-touch but important amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Sanderson but to the wider use of secondary legislation, because there is a significant difference between negative and affirmative resolution. With negative, there is no requirement to approve the SIs for them to become law, and with the affirmative, there is a far higher degree of scrutiny sought, with the three forms of high and appropriate scrutiny that are well known to every Member of the House. That is why, wherever possible, Parliament should insist that as much as possible is on the face of the Bill, and why resorting to secondary legislation should be kept to an absolute minimum. It is with those comments in mind and made that I believe, not only in the context of Amendment 58 but throughout the Bill, that we need to return on Report to make sure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny throughout.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. To sum up the situation on the affirmative versus the negative procedure, the reality is that negative instruments slip through this House almost unnoticed. The occasional one might catch the eye of an eagle-eyed Peer who might raise it and turn it into an affirmative procedure, but the vast majority slip through. The procedure is intended for routine things such as renewals year on year, not the kind of procedure envisaged in this legislation. At least we get the opportunity to debate affirmative instruments, although that is done on an “accept it or reject it” basis. We cannot amend them, and it is therefore a pretty blunt instrument. Noble Lords know that the number of affirmative instruments rejected by this House is extremely small.

I join the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, for his acceptance that he has to provide greater clarity in response to our criticisms. The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, also indicated that she will write in response to the specific questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. My noble friend Lord Purvis pointed out a lack of clarity about how and why this legislation will operate.

I noted the Minister’s comments about the Australian trade deal. The announcement sets out in detail the issues that will be covered, but not exactly how they will be covered. I read it with great interest. The two Prime Ministers stood there in person and announced it proudly. Is the Minister now saying that this is just a rough sketch of what might be and that we should not rely on this as the brave new future announced to us only a week or so ago?

I conclude by saying that the Bill has come to us far too soon. That view is probably shared by many noble Lords across the Committee. There has been a lack of consultation with the devolved Administrations and the regulators and a lack of research. It shows. The Bill was conceived with absolutely no understanding of the complexity of this process. Going back to Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Garden and I warned that the process of agreeing the mutual recognition of qualifications will take years. We have been arguing about how we set up a system to do that. It has nothing to do with the process of making the agreement on mutual recognition. We are in the calm before the storm on this.

We have a situation where there is uncertainty about who the regulators actually are and there is no recognition of how long it takes to agree the qualifications. This is a truly terrible Bill. I do not say that because I disagree with the principle behind the need for mutual recognition of qualifications. We need to have it, but we have a Bill that has not decided what it is about, how it will do it and why it will have to do it. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that it is bordering on the absurd, so I urge Ministers to go back to their department to have a long and honest conversation and then either withdraw the Bill and put it out of its misery or at the very least have a delay before Report to give them the opportunity to recharge their batteries and consider what they really want from the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 58 withdrawn.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 30 is a probing amendment on the abiding theme in our debates on this Bill, namely regulator autonomy.

Clause 4(1) says that regulations can be made

“for the purpose of, or in connection with, authorising a regulator … to enter into regulator recognition agreements.”

That seems pretty straightforward. Authorising a regulator to enter into a recognition agreement should not involve any element of compulsion, but I have learned to be wary of wide regulation-making powers.

My Amendment 30 seeks to make it clear that Clause 4 cannot be used to compel regulators to enter into recognition agreements. With this probing amendment, I am asking one simple question: are there any circumstances in which the power in Clause 4 could be used to force a regulator to enter into any recognition agreements?

Since tabling my amendment, I have seen the Government’s response of 3 June to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, where they state that the power cannot

“be used to provide regulators with the ability to enter into regulator recognition agreements where they lack sufficient abilities”.

If my noble friend the Minister confirms today from the Dispatch Box that nothing in Clause 4 could compel a regulator to do anything it does not want to do, we will be able to dispense with my amendment fairly straightforwardly.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. This issue is the crux of the independence of regulators. The situation is that not all regulators are equal: they do not all have the same legal powers; they do not all have the same clout; they do not all have the same capacity. For example, in the years between 2007 and 2016, the Nursing and Midwifery Council issued 46,257 decisions on international regulation, whereas the General Chiropractic Council issued 29. We are obviously not talking about a group of organisations that are equal in terms of their ability to withstand not just the letter of the law, but the thrust of government policy. Pressure from the Government can be a very powerful thing for an organisation. We also have to take into account the fact that some of the countries with which these international trade agreements will be signed will have regulators that are only now properly developing. Not only are all our regulators not equal, but in other countries, not all regulators are equal.

I draw the Minister’s attention to a set of statements in the impact assessment. He has often emphasised the independence of regulators, so can he therefore explain the contrast between two of its paragraphs? Paragraph 111 of the impact assessment says:

“The Bill contains a power to enable regulators to negotiate and agree Recognition Arrangements (RAs) with their overseas counterparts. The Bill does not require the negotiation of RAs”.


In paragraph 118, however, it says:

“The Bill contains a power to make regulations to implement the recognition of professional qualifications (RPQ) components of international agreements. These regulations could include the ability to bind regulators to implement the RPQ chapters of IAs as appropriate.”


Paragraph 111 says that they cannot be bound, whereas Paragraph 118 says, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested, that regulations might trespass on the independence of regulators. I simply ask the Minister for clarification.

In his letter to me this weekend which, in the spirit of proceedings here, I read just after midnight, the Minister said that MRAs

“would not place obligations on regulators and instead encourage them to develop MRAs.”

Which is it? Are regulators to be truly and, in a wholesale way, independent and not subject to pressure, either direct or indirect, or are they to have their wings clipped potentially by regulations?

This amendment clarifies beyond doubt what I believe, from the Minister’s previous statements, is his favoured interpretation: that regulators would always be independent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, introduce her amendment. We both tabled our amendments in light of the British Dental Association’s comments, but we ended up drafting them rather differently. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was drafting hers so that it would have to be approved by the UK regulator, rather than by the overseas regulator. I think that we are on the same page, and that my drafting is probably slightly more accurate, but let us not go there. It so confused those in the Public Bill Office that they tried to claim that there was a conflict between our amendments, and that we had to invoke something in the Standing Orders. I said that no, they were not in conflict, and could exist side by side perfectly well, but I now see that they are trying to address exactly the same issue.

The noble Baroness is right that a number of countries have a multitude of individual qualifications, some of which are good for the purposes of the regulated profession, and some which are not. There is a good example in this country: lots of bodies recognise accountants, but not all of them can be recognised as registered auditors; and there will be lots of examples beyond that. It is that point which we are trying to ensure is properly identified when dealing with Clause 4 and the position of the overseas regulation in relation to particular qualifications, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look on one or both of these amendments favourably.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 32A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Garden, would require the appropriate national authority to consult with higher education institutions and other training providers before making regulations under this clause. I declare an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University.

I asked a Written Question, answered by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in which I asked Her Majesty’s Government

“why higher education institutions and other providers of training for professional qualifications are not listed as stakeholders affected in the impact assessment for the Professional Qualifications Bill; whether higher education institutions or others …were consulted on the proposals in that Bill, and … what plans they have to consult such providers in the future.”

The Answer stated:

“The proposals in the Bill do not affect the UK qualifications or experience required to practise a profession. The Government ran a Call for Evidence on the recognition of professional qualifications … between August 2020 and October 2020, which was open to anyone with an interest in professional qualifications”,


and that there were, among others,

“26 responses from educators who provide training and higher education institutions.”

The Answer continued:

“Officials have met representatives from Universities UK to discuss proposals in the Professional Qualifications Bill and will continue to pursue an active programme of stakeholder engagement.”


So, having told me in the Answer that this Bill has no impact on HEIs and other trainers, the Government went on to say that the HEIs and trainers identified themselves in the public consultation as being concerned by, or interested in, this Bill. Following that, the Government have been in discussion with Universities UK at least. Will the Minister clarify whether the Government have also spoken to other training providers, not just the representatives of universities?

I have had correspondence from Universities UK, which says that, although its contact with the Government has been fairly constructive so far, it would be helpful to require the Government to consult with higher education providers as they strike regulator recognition agreements, given the importance of these agreements to certain sections of higher education. The potential impact on onshore recruitment of EU students on relevant courses should be monitored. Clearly, that is of importance because if you are doing away with the EU-established system, there will be an impact on the number of EU students coming to this country, potentially some of them afresh as they will want to get their qualifications here, but also on the top-up courses that our HEIs provide. It also says that it would be helpful to have frequent consultation and analysis-sharing between the Government and higher education providers to help ensure that the Bill benefits the range of bilateral agreements that could increase recruitment to higher education, rather than have a detrimental effect.

It is not the case that this Bill does not affect HEIs. It affects the number of foreign students applying to the UK on top-up courses, and, crucially, what the HEIs and other training providers teach. Depending on what they teach, it affects who they employ and how many of them they employ, so this has a deep impact on them. I urge the Minister to consider this very reasonable amendment. The Government have recognised the legitimate role of higher education—I hope they have consulted other trainers as well—so what reason could they have for rejecting such a sensible and modest amendment?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 55A is in my name. There are many excellent provisions in the Bill requiring regulators to share information. They are required to share information with regulators at home and abroad, and with people who wish to be qualified to practise in this country. However, there is nothing in the Bill which requires the sharing of information with people who are already practising the profession in this country. Indeed, there is nothing in the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which touches on my point, although it would expand the requirement for information sharing.

It might be thought otiose to have such a requirement where a regulator is also a membership body, as it could be assumed that naturally it would communicate with its members, but a regulator is not always a membership body. I remind noble Lords that I said at Second Reading that I was an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and I am grateful to RIBA for discussions about this topic. RIBA is a membership organisation representing its profession, but it does not regulate the architectural profession. As noble Lords will know from other parts of the Bill, that is a function reserved by statute to the Architects Registration Board. Experience is that stand-alone statutory regulators do what is required of them by statute, and very little else. That is why a nudge is needed, and this amendment would achieve that.

This clause would allow professional practitioners to know what agreements regulators were pursuing, what mutual recognition agreements were in the pipeline, what progress had been made and the timeline for the agreement. It would also provide a clear path for professional practitioners to have their views on how agreements should be prioritised made known to the regulator. Remarkably, without this amendment, there is no statutory obligation on a regulator to have any communication with regulated professionals at all.

Why does it matter? To take the example of architects, British architects are known to lead the world. They work on major projects throughout the world, and they often work with our world-beating civil engineers on transport, infrastructure and other major projects. They earn a great deal of export earnings for us as a country, too. When they are doing this, they need to be able to send architects to work in other parts of the world. On occasion, they also need to be able to employ in this country architects who are from countries where a pipeline of work might be developing and have specialist knowledge of regulations—be they on planning or whatever—that apply in the country where the project is being delivered. They are very commercial architects—they have to be, because they operate in a harsh commercial world—so they look ahead. They see a pipeline of activity in a particular country that might be coming forward with new projects—airports, infrastructure, or whatever it might be. They want to be able to have some influence on their regulator about how mutual recognition agreements might be prioritised to facilitate capturing that work.

I have used architects as an example, but there are other professions that might find themselves in a similar situation, which would want to have that two-way flow with their regulator and which, not being a membership organisation, would need, in my view, the help of statute to ensure that that communication took place. This is so modest and commonsensical a suggestion that I hope my noble friend will be able to rise and simply say that he accepts it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss more broadly the contents of Clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 relates to the revocation of the general EU system of recognition of overseas qualifications. It revokes the European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015 and provides regulation-making powers to the appropriate national authority—in this case the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor and the devolved Administrations—to modify any legislation that it considers necessary as a consequence of this provision. The fact that this is a broad regulation-making power underlines the need that I identified earlier to consult before the power is exercised, so I again press my noble friend on that point. Clause 6 looks at the revocation of other retained EU recognition law and provides the appropriate national authority with a regulation-making power to modify other legislation for professions that are outside the scope of these regulations but still part of the broader EU-derived recognition framework.

My first question to my noble friend relates to Clause 5(1), which represents basically a cliff-edge revocation of the whole of the EU MRPQ regime in UK domestic law. If we adopt such a one-size-fits-all measure, and given the constraint placed by Clause 2 on the gap-filling power in that clause, would it not be sensible for the Bill to include a power to save, in an appropriate case, the effect of specified elements of the EU-derived MRPQ rules in relation to a particular profession or professions?

This has been put forward by the Bar Council of England, which states:

“We doubt whether Clause 5(2), even read with Clause 13(1)(c)”—


which we will discuss separately—

“provides a power to save the effect of any part of the remaining EU-derived MRPQ regime.”

My concern is that there may be parts of that regime which, for an interim period or even longer, some of the regulators or professions would wish to keep. I understand that that would not be possible. Is that something my noble friend might review for the purposes of the debate today?

I understand that Clause 5(1)

“would come into force on a day specified by the secretary of state in regulations.”


A memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says:

“BEIS has said that it intends that commencement regulations would “include savings and transitional provisions relating both to qualifications that have already been recognised and to applications that are already in progress but not yet complete”.


Can my noble friend confirm how that will play in the different jurisdictions, particularly regarding the legal profession, which is dealt with separately in Scotland, England and Wales?

The Library briefing also states:

“Clause 6 would come into force on the day the bill was passed. In the context of clause 6, the Government has said not all pieces of relevant legislation will be revoked at the same time. Some arrangements may be kept for a longer period depending upon the needs of a given sector.”


My concern is that this may lead to some confusion and a lack of understanding of the legal status of the provisions. I refer again to BEIS and its memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on 12 May 2021. Paragraph 50 says:

“In particular, it is expected that the healthcare sector will need a longer period of time to transition to the new system to avoid recruitment and retention issues in those sectors”,


which we have just briefly debated. It continues:

“BEIS is of the view that it is appropriate to allow for Departments and devolved authorities to revoke these measures at an appropriate time, without fixing a particular date in the bill.”


Is my understanding correct that we could be faced with different situations in the different devolved nations? Are the Government mindful of what the implications might be?

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to discuss these concerns about Clause 5. Will my noble friend consider that there may be parts of the EU system we want to keep? I accept we have taken the decision to leave it, but, for an interim period, that may be the case. The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Following the end of the transition period, this system had been retained in the interim to provide certainty to businesses and public services by offering preferential qualification recognition to holders of EEA and Swiss qualifications. The new recognition framework, as set out in Clause 1, will be implemented alongside revoking the 2015 Regulations.”


To sum up, there could be different regimes working at the same time under Clauses 5 and 6. How does my noble friend intend that his department will manage that to the best possible effect?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome these amendments. I will start with the points the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was dwelling on at the end—the impact assessment gives the impression that, when this Bill becomes law, it terminates the transitional arrangements which continue to recognise EU qualifications. Indeed, most of the Bill indicates that. Clause 6 undoubtedly muddies the water somewhat. There is a need for clarification from the Minister because there is scope for a great deal of confusion.

From previous comments made by the Minister, I gather that the UK wanted to agree mutual recognition of qualifications as part of the trade agreement with the EU but the EU was not prepared to accept that. I pointed out on the first day in Committee that this is not an agreement between equals; for example, there are 22,000 EU-qualified medics working in this country but only 2,000 UK-trained medics across the countries of the EEA plus Switzerland. In short, we depend a lot more on them than they do on us. The pattern is repeated across a large number of professions. It is not uniform, but it is repeated widely.

Therefore, the Government’s decision to throw their toys out of the pram and say, “If you won’t recognise ours, we won’t recognise yours”, is, I regret to say, simply self-defeating. It also displays a seriously worrying lack of awareness of how long it takes for a regulator to go through the approvals process for each new country’s qualifications. The impact assessment refers to contacts with regulators but, as I said in a previous debate, these are very minimal, and regulators were notably sparing in their responses to government consultation. We do not have a thorough picture of how this will impact on regulators, but I can assure noble Lords that years, not months, is the norm for recognising qualifications—for going through the whole process. As a result of this Bill, there will be a gap when the old qualifications are no longer recognised and the new ones are not yet accepted. Already, we have shortages in a number of professions; we have had shortages for many years, but the Brexit situation has made them much worse. The rhetoric that went along with Brexit has made so many foreign professionals feel unwelcome, and that lack of feeling welcome has had an impact way beyond the EU immigrants; it has impacted on people across the world.

I suppose I should be reassured that the impact assessment states that, although the Bill sweeps away current EEA recognition, the regulators are able to sign recognition agreements with individual countries. However, there is an element of farce here, because dealing with that costs money and is bureaucratic and complex. It is a pity the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is not in her place, because she would be nodding fiercely with me on that one. But it will cost money, and that cost will fall on people working in each of the professions concerned. Also, the Minister himself told us in a letter that the old agreements were unpopular, although I have not found anyone echoing that within the sector. But the Government felt that they were unpopular and wanted to replace them.

The sensible thing would be for the Government simply to continue to accept the status quo—the EEA system—at least for a much longer interim period and perhaps review it after five years. I hope we can persuade the Minister that the pragmatic thing to do is to accept this amendment, or maybe even to commit to looking at it again and adding that the whole thing will be reviewed in five years’ time. It will take that long to re-erect a sensible, comprehensive system to replace what the Bill is sweeping away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Garden has wisely pointed out the poor grammar in the Bill. I hope that note will be taken of that. The really significant question here is what the assistance centre is for. It is built on—and the Minister went out of his way last time to point this out—the modest size and the modest number of inquiries that the current assistance centre has dealt with. It is a creation of the UK Government as a result of a non-legal requirement from the EU—a suggestion from the EU. It is not a legislative requirement by the EU. The UK Government decided to make the requirement in law, but the EU situation does not make it a requirement.

We therefore have this organisation that has clearly, in the past, had a small, modest but useful function, but the world has moved on. If you search for anything online these days, there is a wealth of information. Even if you have a limited level of experience in a particular field, you rapidly discover what information is reliable and what is not. What is proposed here is a much bigger organisation—a much more grandiose and legally established organisation with scope for further growth. The Minister told me not to be suspicious, but I remain suspicious. In my view, the UK Government see this organisation as an opportunity for them to take a centralising, co-ordinating role which will nudge the devolved Administrations out of the way in fields where the vast majority of activity is devolved, such as health, teaching and social work. The day-to-day activity in the health service, the teaching profession and social work is done and controlled by the devolved Administrations, even if there are not always separate regulators.

We have raised previously the concurrency of powers of the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. This is an attempt by the UK Government to bring what they see as order and an element of control to the situation. If the assistance centre had a purpose, modern search facilities online have now made it redundant. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that it is better to put it to sleep—put it out of its misery.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, while I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes that any advice would be better if it was comprehensive and included all the things that everyone would want to know if they were applying either to move here or to go away, the more fundamental question, which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked, is whether we need Clause 7 at all. As she and others have said, it is not clear why it is necessary to establish a statutory advice centre simply to handle information and provide advice and assistance. It will not make any decisions. It will not have the authority to chide regulators for not doing something; it does not have any authority over them. The statutory requirement is actually on regulators to provide advice to the centre—there is no statutory requirement on the centre to fine them if they do not do it or anything else like that—although, as has been said, there are already other ways of getting that information. In addition, only the UK Government, not the other Governments in the Bill, interestingly enough, are able to enforce this requirement. I do not know whether that is an oversight but, given that there is more than one national authority in the Bill, it would be interesting to know why the requirement on regulators is laid down only by the UK Government.

This is all very strange. It is a very clunky and convoluted way of simply asking statutory regulators to tell a Minister such information as is needed to provide advice to potential applicants on how they go about getting their qualifications recognised here. They have been doing that for years. We heard earlier about a number of regulators, particularly in the health service, veterinary science and other areas, that have been doing this for years without any statutory requirement to provide the advice, so it is unclear why the new law is needed. As has already been said, we know that the assistance centre is already in operation. But I think none of us knows why we need a specific underpinning now, and what it is that could not be done by a couple of civil servants within BEIS.

The Minister said last Wednesday that “new legislative cover” is required, but he did not spell out what it was required to do—why this could not be done on a voluntary basis. We have lots of other advice centres which do not have to have statutory underpinning, so why is legislation needed? He said, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, just quoted, that the centre

“is basically a focal point—a signposting mechanism that tells people where to go to get more information about professions”

and that

“it employs either two or three people.”

It must be tiny; I was going to say that it received 1,600 queries in a year, but it has now received 1,601—I think our little website here gets far more hits than that. As the Minister had the honesty to confess:

“These queries can be as simple as saying, ‘What is the address of the place I have to write to, to find out how I become a nurse in Great Britain?’”—[Official Report, 9/6/21; col. 1501.]


If you google “nurse vacancies”, you might just find it. The idea that we are employing anybody and paying them money to tell people about the address they need to write to to find out how to become a nurse in Great Britain makes me worried, and why on earth does it have to be a statutory body if it is just signposting?

The impact assessment says that

“the Secretary of State can (through contractual arrangements) require the national assistance centre to support professionals”—

it is unclear what “support” means—

“in getting their UK qualifications recognised overseas by providing reasonable information to their overseas counterparts.”

Again, surely the regulator can do that. If a doctor wants to apply to be a doctor in New Zealand, for example, surely their regulator can supply that information. If it is to be done by the advice centre and by contract, it is really hard to think why, again, it needs two bodies or persons to be statutory if they are simply setting up contracts to be able to exchange information—because it is not a decision-making body.

It is unclear what the relationship will be between the centre and overseas regulators. If it is by contracts, how much will they be bound by data protection to ensure that the overseas regulators will look after people’s data according to normal laws? That is easier in a regulator-to-regulator agreement—we have talked about these elsewhere, so why not here?

I am completely mystified as to why Clause 7 is in the Bill. Perhaps we can just take it out, and then we can all go home.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I wondered if I had drawn the short straw for this set of amendments. It always feels slightly lonely when yours is the only name on an amendment, but I assure noble Lords that I have the support of all my Lib Dem colleagues. I beg to move Amendment 4 and speak to Amendments 5, 7, 8 and 33—there may be more to come later; I hope that this is not a spoiler alert—to remove “substantially” from the relevant clauses. It appears so often that it is obviously a favourite word of the Bill drafters, but it expresses a qualification, uncertainty and lack of conviction which we wish to challenge, and it surely threatens to undermine the authority of the regulators. If I were having an operation, or water were flooding through my roof, I am not sure that I would be reassured to know that the surgeon or the plumber had substantially the same knowledge and skills as those required by a UK surgeon or plumber, or substantially corresponded to the practice of a profession. Surely in legislation we need to be more assured. If we are genuinely looking at a level playing field between UK and overseas professionals, let us have the courage of our convictions and assure our citizens that they are in safe hands because the regulators have done their professional job and checked that qualifications and experience match across the countries, not just substantially but in their entirety.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. As my noble friend has excellently explained, we are probing the use of “substantially” and highlighting what we see as its inadequacy. The Minister’s own amendments start to tackle this problem. Both the British Dental Association and the British Medical Association have concerns that the proposals focus too heavily on simple qualifications and do not adequately recognise the importance of skills and experience, as well as the vital requirement to be of good character and to put patient safety first. This is fundamental in healthcare and being of good character is of course important in teaching-related professions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, earlier outlined the concerns of the Health and Care Professions Council. The Minister may argue that the BMA, the BDA and so on are not regulators, but they represent their profession. They have a stake in the respect in which that profession is held, and they pay substantial annual fees for the recognition of their qualifications. The impact assessment makes it clear that the proposals in the Bill will be likely to increase those fees.

In some measure, the amendment encapsulates the fundamental problem with the Bill. It tries to impose a simplistic solution on an endlessly complex and dynamic situation. The Government have grossly underestimated how long it will take to replace the current structure with an adequate and comprehensive alternative. The interim recognition of qualifications is swept away on enactment of the Bill, on the grounds that it gives preference to EEA and Swiss nationals before a replacement is necessarily ready. What will it be replaced with? Another set of recognition for qualifications from countries which will then be given preference as a result of international trade arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Just for clarification, if a Member wishes to speak after the Minister and is in the Chamber, they can message the clerk; if they are online, they can email the clerk. But all requests must come through the clerk to the Chair. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak specifically to Amendments 42, 49 and 57, which I have co-signed. They all address issues related to the interaction of UK Government powers with those of the devolved Administrations and each of the three relates to different aspects of that issue.

Amendment 42 relates to the national assistance centre. The impact assessment makes it clear that this will be a centralised facility under the control of the Secretary of State, but it will also provide information and assistance in relation to devolved regulators and where the professional qualifications are different in the devolved nations. In preparation for this debate, I went online and explored the websites of a range of regulators. They all seem to provide comprehensive advice and information services, so I am puzzled as to what the problem is. Why is it necessary for the Government to overlay the well-established structure of regulators with this additional bureaucracy with—of course—its accompanying additional cost?

Because I am of a suspicious nature, I feel that the real purpose of the assistance centre is to enable to the UK Government to override the differences between the nations of the UK and, when making trade agreements, to take the opportunity to iron out those annoying differences in qualifications in one part of the UK and another. Hence my amendment, which simply requires consultation with the devolved Administrations on the function and operation of the assistance centre before it is established.

It should not be necessary to state this basic constitutional principle in terms of an amendment to a Bill, but the Government’s approach to this Bill has been woeful so far. It has been developed at speed—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, suggested it was on the back of an envelope—at a time when elections meant that there have been none of the usual opportunities to consult the devolved Administrations. In Wales, officials did not even see a draft of the Bill until the week before its introduction. They did not see the final version until we all saw it, when it was laid.

As drafted, this Bill confers a suite of regulation-making powers on the appropriate national authority. In Wales, the Welsh Ministers are that authority for the devolved areas, but the powers conferred on them are exercisable concurrently with the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor—hence the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor could legislate in devolved areas and would not need to obtain Welsh Ministers’ consent.

As things stand, all the devolved Administrations appear to be opposed to this Bill in its current form. In Amendment 42, I offer just a modest solution to a very small part of the problem that the Government face. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain exactly how he sees the assistance centre working, how large it will be, what it will actually do and the estimated cost.

Amendment 49 relates to the interaction of this Bill with common frameworks, an issue that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Several noble Lords can boast that they have the T-shirt in relation to common frameworks and their interaction with government attempts to regain devolved powers. We fought several rounds with the Government on this issue during the passage of the internal market Bill. It is not at all clear how this Professional Qualifications Bill interacts with the well-established common frameworks programme.

There is a recognition of professional qualifications framework in preparation by BEIS, but it seems to have been delayed and there has been no explanation for that delay. Is this Bill designed to replace that common framework? If so, the Government need to tell the devolved Administrations, because they would much rather go ahead on the basis of a framework that involves non-legislative co-operation and a lot of working by consensus. This amendment is designed to ensure that the common framework on professional qualifications is not undermined or overtaken by any provisions in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Purvis of Tweed. We will start with the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response to several of the issues that I have raised. I welcome his assurances on the common framework on this issue and I look forward, along with colleagues across the Committee, to scrutinising it in due course. I also welcome the information that he has provided on the assistance centre. That is helpful, but it would have been even more helpful if it had been included in the impact assessment so that we would not have had to waste time today seeking that information.

Finally, I want to make an important point. To me, it sounds as if the Minister has been really surprised by this Bill and therefore it should not be unexpected that the devolved Administrations have been surprised by it too. Since the vast majority of the Bill touches on devolved powers, why were not the officials of the devolved Administrations, if not the Ministers, involved at an earlier stage in the development of this policy? That would have improved trust if that had happened. Perhaps I may urge the Minister to make up for lost time by having some fairly intensive discussions with the devolved Administrations over the coming days.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments, and to reflect on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. He has reminded us of the complexity and sensitivity of these issues, with his example of medical practice in America. It is a country— the richest in the world— with the very highest medical standards, but it does not have the guarantees of high standards, perhaps, that we rightly want to take for granted in this country. I think he has pinpointed an important sensitivity on this issue.

I welcome these amendments, especially the emphasis on consultation, since I am very worried about the lack of awareness of this Bill beyond this Chamber. I think it is right to say that some of us in this Chamber have woken up only gradually to the huge complexity of the Bill. The Minister himself expressed some surprise at it, and the more that can be done to raise awareness among regulators and among the professions affected the better.

I have one very specific comment: I was struck, on reading the impact assessment, on how narrow the Government’s consultations with regulators were prior to the laying of this Bill. Out of 150 professions and 60 regulators, only a dozen were involved in some of the consultation. They were asked questions about the costs and, in one case, there were replies from only three of them. The costings we have been given on an expensive new policy are based, in some aspects, on replies from three regulators, and they could hardly be regarded as a representative cross-section. There is a real worry for us about a lack of understanding of the complexity of the Government’s policy.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for her amendments and I note that the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, are supporting them. These amendments introduce a duty to publish, in draft form, any proposed regulations where they relate to the professions listed, and to consult on these regulations before they can be made under Clauses 1 and 3—the powers to provide for individuals to be treated as having UK qualifications and the implementation of international agreements respectively. I have spoken at some length about the commitment to engagement on both clauses but let me provide some further reassurance specific to these amendments.

First, and perhaps most importantly, the Government, through this Bill, will not and cannot bring forward regulations that affect the autonomy of regulators or the standards that they set. With the greatest of respect to noble Lords, I sometimes feel that they think there is more to this Bill than meets the eye. There is not. This is a Bill which, at its heart, is about the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. It is not, and could not be, a Trojan horse for the Government to somehow choose to undermine the autonomy or the standards of regulators. It would be the height of foolishness for any Government, not just mine, to do so. I suggest that a little injection of reality about what this Bill is about should creep into some of our debates, and I say that with the greatest respect to noble Lords.

I turn first to Amendment 15 to Clause 1, which would mean that, if one of the listed professions were deemed to meet the demand condition in Clause 2, and regulations under Clause 1 were justified, there would be a three-month period of consultation with their regulators before regulations relating to those professions could be made.

I recognise that the professions and regulators specified by the noble Baroness are primarily those supporting our important public services. It is of course essential that any regulations made under the Bill support the delivery of public services and complement regulators’ existing practices. However, there seems little merit in listing, in primary legislation, a set of priority professions —my noble friend Lady Noakes put this very succinctly —which would be subject to change as demand changed. To do so could unduly restrict the ability of the Government, or the other national authorities, to respond quickly and efficiently to the needs of the professions on the list when they were deemed to have unmet demand.

Moreover, let us remind ourselves of what Clause 1 does. It requires regulators to have a route to consider applications from these people. It does not tell them that they have to accept these people or that there has to be a diminution of standards in relation to them; it requires regulators to have a route to consider them. This in no way undermines the carefully constructed architecture that our regulators have put in place to protect patients, consumers and other users of regulated services. Decisions under the Bill will be informed by careful engagement with professions and their regulators, and not introduced without warning. I agree that regulators will need to be involved from the outset, and have time to prepare for changes.

Amendment 27, which relates to Clause 3, seeks to make a similar requirement to publish and consult on draft regulations, with the same regulators and professions, in relation to implementing parts of international agreements on the recognition of professional qualifications. As I have explained previously—and will no doubt have to continue to do—a key concern for the Government in all negotiations is ensuring that the autonomy of regulators within these trade agreements protects UK standards. That applies to all regulators and professional bodies which may be within the scope of an international agreement, not just the ones specified in this amendment.

Through the Department for International Trade the Government engage with a range of stakeholders, including regulators, to understand their priorities and inform the UK’s approach to trade with future trade agreement partners. We have several forums to inform these negotiations, including the trade advisory groups, which hold strategic discussions to help shape our future trade policy and secure opportunities in every corner of the UK. We also hold many ad hoc consultations with interested parties. BEIS also organises regulator forums that provide updates on the negotiations and the terms of trade deals.

In addition, to consult before making regulations at the point at which the international agreement being implemented has already concluded would, frankly, be too late to meaningfully impact the substance of the agreement. That is why in May this year we launched a public call for input as we prepared for trade negotiations with India, Canada and Mexico. I encourage all those with an interest, and of course that includes all regulators and professions, to respond. Why would we not want to know what people think before we embark on the negotiations? To think that we should consult them after the agreement has been effectively finalised, when it is being prepared for parliamentary scrutiny, seems, with great respect, to be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

On Clause 3, it is important for the UK Government to be able to meet our international obligations on professional qualifications, to support UK professionals and trade in professional services, and to do so in a timely fashion. I know that on a later group of amendments we will come back to further examination of this clause.

I trust that this gives reassurance to noble Lords on the engagement of professions, including the professions cited in the amendments but of course all others, before any changes are enacted through regulations through Clauses 1 and 3. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, this is a very interesting group of amendments because, as far as I can see, it is about addressing the domestic skills shortage. I do not think anyone should be under any illusion about the extent to which there now is a skills shortage. I am going to address this purely across health and social care, which is the area that I know about. I am not going to touch on law and so on.

There is a skills shortage now, particularly among clinical scientists. These are not qualified doctors; they are scientists who are now working in the clinical arena, often carrying a great deal of clinical responsibility. As medicine progresses, and as clinical sciences progress, there will be more of these people coming forward who have very narrow but highly specialised skills. I have already mentioned the physician assistants and anaesthesia assistants. Anaesthesia—and I say this having trained for a time in anaesthetics myself—is not a straightforward discipline. Things can go wrong very rapidly, and the responsibility carried by somebody with this skill set is enormous, because somebody’s life depends on it. They need to know what they are doing all the time. Currently, this group of assistants are not registered. I use that as an example because there will be others, including people working in fields such as cardiology and radiology—in all kinds of interventional areas. Then there are those working in the diagnostic fields who are clinical scientists. If they get something wrong, the diagnostic label attached to a patient will be wrong, the treatment will be wrong, and that patient’s life may be not only damaged but lost. If that original diagnostic test is not properly conducted, the mistake is repeated all down the line. I have a major concern, therefore, about the domestic shortage of clinical scientists. We used to have a good supply of people who wanted to come here from Europe. Now, those from Europe have been returning to Europe, but people from Europe no longer want to apply to come to the UK. That is aggravating the existing gaps in the service.

I have added my name to Amendments 20 and 21, and I fully support the requirement for others to be consulted. In all these fields, there is increasing interdisciplinary working. Although the registration of doctors is held separately to that of nurses, midwives, physios and so on, they must in fact work as a team and there must be cross-fertilisation of skills and competencies. We need to invest in UK training to upskill our own professionals—hence Amendment 21. Amendment 21 may lead the way to credentialling, which has been suggested as a way forward across the different healthcare disciplines, whereby people develop highly specialised skills and are credentialled in one particular area, rather than having to go back to their baseline qualification to apply for a post. I also wonder whether the Bill itself has been drafted as it has to push forward credentialling. I would be grateful if the Minister was able to clarify whether that has been behind some of the drafting, particularly in Clause 2.

Amendment 26 stresses the autonomy of the regulator. I would have thought, from the comments we have heard about the Government’s respect for the autonomy of the regulator, that they would wish to accept that amendment, although I do not have my name on it—it is in the name of other noble Lords.

On Amendment 28, again I would hope that the reciprocal arrangements between regulators would be in the Bill itself, to ensure that there is cross-disciplinary working and an interchange of standards. It would be a real mistake to have standards for a certain procedure, or way of doing things, that vary depending on the background—the initial qualification, possibly decades old—of that professional. That would mean that, if they came up through a nursing background they would somehow be expected to operate at a lower standard when they are, as a sole operator, doing a diagnostic procedure such as a gastrostomy, and that the skills and competencies required of them to do that procedure would be different from those required of someone with a medical degree. They should not be: there should be one standard for the procedure—for the patient—and, if it is complicated, it may well be that it gets handed on to the person with the medical degree.

This is, therefore, a very important set of amendments, and I am most interested to hear the Government’s response to them.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister emphasised that the UK wanted to retain mutual recognition of EEA qualifications, and my noble friend Lord Purvis disputed some of that. Whatever led us to the current situation, shortages are a real problem. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, just mentioned, the impact of the lack of recognition is very serious in some professions.

I shall give noble Lords an example: there are around 22,000 EEA-qualified doctors licensed to practise in the UK, although a significant number of them will have returned home, or at least left the UK, in recent months and years. Nurses, in particular, have gone home in large numbers. In contrast to those 22,000 doctors, only about 2,000 UK doctors are licensed to practise in the EEA, so the impact of that decision not to have mutual recognition falls much more heavily on the UK than on the EEA. We are one country with an impact of 22,000, versus 28 countries with an impact of only 2,000 UK-trained doctors.

However, I am pleased to have the opportunity as a result of these amendments to emphasise that the Government have to get a grip on workforce planning generally. There are amendments in this group that refer to the importance of working far beyond reliance on foreign-trained doctors and professionals generally. The Government have to fund an expansion of university and medical school places and increase the number of places on training courses in a wide range of professions where there are shortages.

Judging by statements in the impact assessment, the Government’s purposes seem to waiver. They seem not to have made up their mind about whether regulators can continue to operate independently and autonomously or should be part of a co-operative effort to address skills shortages. This will partly be addressed by international trade agreements. This group of amendments incorporates some ideas that offer the opportunity for greater clarity. Amendment 20, which I support, ensures consultation with regulators, so that it is not the job of the Government alone to decide whether there is a shortage.

One example is from the information that I received in preparation for these debates. The British Dental Association makes the point that in healthcare professions, patient protection must remain the overarching aim. It points out that the current barriers to work in the UK for overseas-qualified dentists include the need, once they are registered, to undertake up to one year of additional training in dental practices. I know this, in part, from my experience of regularly going to the trainee doing one year’s practice at my local dental practice. These opportunities are apparently very rare and difficult to obtain because they involve costs to the practice hosting the training dentist and costs to the new dentists themselves, so any supposed shortage of new dentists in this country would not be resolved by the simple measure of encouraging more registrants. That is the point of the BDA’s comments.