His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, my sympathies and condolences are with Queen Elizabeth, her family, friends and the many associates of her late husband the Duke. Bereavement is immensely difficult at any time, but more so now as it is compounded by the Covid restrictions and lockdowns.

I will look at the life of Prince Philip from a Northern Ireland/Ireland perspective. There is a reference in the Motion to the world-renowned Duke of Edinburgh’s Awards, which recognise youth endeavour, enterprise and outdoor recreational achievement. They are all about building the character and strength of young people. In Northern Ireland, many young people right across the community have benefited from that growing-up experience through this scheme. There are 401 active Duke of Edinburgh centres from 24 licensed organisations. Young people are currently taking part right across our divided community, through schools, churches, Boys’ Brigade companies, Girls’ Brigade companies, Ulster GAA, Scouts, Féile an Phobail, the probation board and the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster. This is a representative proportion of the reach of these awards in Northern Ireland. It is worth noting that 6,018 young people started their programme in 2020 and 3,277 awards were achieved.

Up until 2017, Prince Philip used to come to Hillsborough to present these awards. There is also direct collaboration with the President of Ireland’s awards for young achievement and steadfast commitment to outdoor recreational participation, known as Gaisce, which was negotiated between President McAleese and Prince Philip some years ago.

For me, the most memorable event involving the Prince and the Queen was their official visitation to Ireland in May 2012, when they visited the Garden of Remembrance, dedicated to those who fought for Irish freedom, Croke Park, Islandbridge memorial, and then attended the dinner in Dublin Castle. I participated, as a party leader in Northern Ireland, in many of these events. This was a symbolic visit to many sites representing Ireland’s independence from Britain, but I have to say that both the Queen and Prince Philip fully participated in these visits, thus showing the duality of relationships, the necessity of parity of esteem, and a maturing of relationships between Britain and Ireland. Then there was the reciprocal visit by President Higgins to London—to Buckingham Palace and to Westminster itself in 2014.

It is worthy of note that the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, said last week on the passing of the Duke of Edinburgh:

“The commitment of the royal family to Irish-British relations is an important part of the work we do together—and today we pay tribute to Prince Philip’s own important contribution”,


no doubt referring to that duality of relationships and building blocks of reconciliation through the awards scheme, and also that particular visit, among other things. I concur with that view. Those building blocks for reconciliation and parity of esteem that were demonstrated by the Queen and Prince Philip with President McAleese and, latterly, President Higgins, are required now more ever with the background of increased community and political tensions in Northern Ireland.

Working with the Heads of State in Ireland, the Queen and Prince Philip demonstrated that we have a common history and shared experiences of historic conflict, both on the island of Ireland and between these islands—including where the Prince’s family were deeply affected, through the murder of his uncle, Lord Mountbatten. The sad departure of Prince Philip after a long and fulfilling life should be, for us, a renewed opportunity to build relationships and promote reconciliation, thus sustaining that new bond of shared endeavour across Britain and Ireland.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso.

Financial Services Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th March 2021 Grand Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial Services Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st March 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lady Noakes, who spoke eloquently on the capital requirements. I was planning to do the same, but she has said much of what I was planning to say, so I shall confine myself to a brief question about Amendment 31.

Amendment 31 refers to

“existing fossil fuel production and exploitation.”

I wonder whether all the possible consequences have been considered. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, spoke eloquently on mining, and I, too, claim mining ancestors: my great-grandfather was a coal miner in Seaton Burn in Northumberland. The noble Lord also mentioned stranded and abandoned communities. I wonder whether the amendment, as drafted, would also apply to companies that are actively engaged in the complex process of decommissioning existing facilities, particularly those in the North Sea. In many cases, those are the same companies that are involved in exploitation and exploration. Again, my noble friend Lady Noakes spoke very eloquently about hypothecation when it comes to lending to some of these types of companies. With that in mind, were the potential regional effects of rationing capital to these businesses considered, because that is the likely net effect of the amendments? I suppose that that would have particular reference to and relevance in Scotland.

I am sure we all hope for a world free from fossil fuels, but I am 100% confident that, regrettably, we will need them for a while yet—although it is probably worth stating that they have other uses apart from just being burned. As my noble friend Lady Noakes also pointed out, it is fair to say that financial institutions have a refined—no pun intended—approach to assessing fossil fuel-related risk and are perfectly capable of valuing stranded assets. The proof of that is to be found in the valuation of companies such as BP and Royal Dutch. If, as the amendments imply, we would prefer no lending at all to fossil fuel companies—which is a perfectly legitimate point of view—should we not just say that and agitate for a multinational agreement to that effect, perhaps at COP 26, rather than introduce it via the back door through amendments such as these?

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

My Lords, I am not a financial expert, nor was that my academic background, nor do I have family involved in the fossil fuel industry, because Northern Ireland did not have a mining base. However, it is quite clear to me that the Financial Services Bill is silent on the climate emergency and carbon issues. Therefore, I favour the amendments in this group in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and other colleagues.

A recent Bank of England publication states:

“Climate change poses different risks to the stability of the financial system, particularly for the insurance and banking sectors.”


It states that there are physical, transition and liability risks from climate change. Climate change means that we may face more frequent or severe weather events, such as flooding, droughts and storms. Examples of those recent weather events that have been linked to human-driven climate change include the heatwave and droughts in China in the summer of 2013 and the more recent flood events in the UK. Such events bring physical risks that impact on our society and have the potential to affect the economy, and our financial services sector. If these events happen more frequently, people will become more reliant on insurance to cover the costs of damage to their houses and cars.

Transition risks can occur when moving towards a less polluting, greener economy. Such transitions could mean that some sectors of the economy face big shifts in asset values or higher costs of doing business. One example is energy companies. If government policies were to change in line with the Paris Agreement, two-thirds of the world’s known fossil fuel reserves could not be burned. This could lead to changes in the value of investments held by banks and insurance companies in sectors such as coal, oil and gas.

Liability risks come from people or businesses seeking compensation for losses that they may have suffered from the physical or transition risks from climate change.

It is important to tackle climate change and protect the environment. This is very important in the financial services sector; I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to that in the recent past. As I said, there is no reference in the Bill to climate or the ecological emergency, notwithstanding that the UK Government have the chair of COP 26 this year. There is no mention of green finance, climate risk disclosure or the critical role that the financial services industry will have to play if we are to tackle climate change.

How do the Government intend to deal with this matter from a legislative point of view? It is recognised as a clear priority by the Chancellor, although the Minister who took the Bill through the other place did not see any direct correlation between financial services regulation and the impact and risk of climate change. Parliament should determine that role and ensure that these amendments are made to this legislation. The amendments, which I support, would require the Prudential Regulation Authority to have regard to climate-related financial risk when setting capital adequacy requirements, and would ensure that credit rating agencies have to take climate risk into account in setting credit ratings, with particular relevance to fossil fuel exposures. I think of the fact that the Government wish to pursue a new coal mine in Cumbria.

Do the Government not see the benefit in these amendments to have regard to climate-related financial risk when setting capital adequacy requirements? If not, could they specify what their position is? Will they not admit that there is a direct correlation between the climate change emergency, fossil fuels and financial services regulation? Perhaps the noble Earl could provide us with answers when he winds up.

Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]]

I will speak to Amendment 4 and endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Hain said in his powerful speech in support of it. As he pointed out, the striking thing about this amendment is its modesty. All it requires is consultation of relevant trade unions and businesses over the granting of pavement licences. As was pointed out in Committee, for 70 years and three weeks since it ratified ILO Convention 98 on 30 June 1950, the United Kingdom has voluntarily assumed the obligation to encourage and promote collective bargaining. The United Kingdom fortified its commitment to collective bargaining when it ratified a similar obligation in Article 6 of the European Social Charter in 1972.

The need for collective bargaining, particularly at sectoral level, was brought home when we learned of the appalling conditions and pitiful rates of pay—often less than half the national minimum wage—in the sweatshops of the Leicester garment industry. We saw that need again in the agricultural sector, when an outbreak of Covid-19 among workers at a vegetable farm revealed the appalling living and working conditions among the workers there. We know that, in agriculture, conditions and pay are so bad that it was found necessary to fly pickers in from Romania earlier this season, since British workers, even faced with unemployment and the terrors of universal credit, were not prepared to put up with them.

The answer in these and other sectors was explained long ago in the other place by Sir Winston Churchill, who in 1909 introduced legislation to make sectoral collective bargaining mandatory. I will read three sentences from his speech that day:

“It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty’s subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions.”


He continued:

“where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst”.

He concluded by saying:

“where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/1909; col. 388.]

Hence, the Trade Boards Act 1909 was introduced and passed.

My noble friend Lord Hain referred to Roosevelt and the New Deal. Part of that was the National Industrial Recovery Act 1933, which introduced sectoral collective bargaining widely in the United States. It is in these circumstances that I stress the modesty of the amendment my noble friend proposes today. There can be no sensible reason not to adopt it, and I commend it to the Minister.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, in supporting the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. This is not only a very sensible and modest amendment; it will provide a new framework for co-operation between businesses and employees, as the noble Lord said. Why not allow employees to have a say over the implementation of pavement licences, as they will be directly impacted upon and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that—shall we say—the letter and spirit of the law is adhered to?

Employees have discharged many responsibilities during the whole Covid pandemic. However, there is absolutely no doubt—and there is evidence-based research to prove—that when employees, employers and businesses co-operate, it boosts performance, production and profitability, lifts living standards and enhances job prospects. We can look to Germany and the role of work councils, which we talked about last week when considering a similar amendment in Committee.

I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Hendy and Lord Monks. I commend it to your Lordships’ House and ask the Minister to give dutiful consideration to accepting it.

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, now that we have reached Report stage, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I shall be brief. My name is attached to Amendment 20, which is part of a group concerned with safety and accessibility for all who use the pavement. At previous stages of the Bill, I have emphasised the need to set clear and enforceable rules on the use of pavements—and I prefer conditions to guidance.

The Government’s changes may well be a step forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, has explained, but improvements could still be made. Amendment 20 would help to achieve these, and I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government’s approach will deliver the degree of certainty we are looking for to enable our pavements to be accessible for all.

Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, Covid-19 has caused more disruption and damage to the world’s economies than any event in living memory. In the UK alone, millions could lose their jobs and hundreds of billions of pounds could be wiped from the economy. This pandemic is far from over. We face the risk of localised spikes and perhaps worse, causing further grief and economic instability. The future remains volatile and uncertain, so it is vital that the Government provide all possible support.

This Business and Planning Bill presents an opportunity to kick-start our economy as it emerges from lockdown. A huge amount is at stake, so it is imperative that we get the details of the legislation right. There is a lot we need to do. People want to socialise again, quite justifiably, but we need to encourage them to do so safely. This means the Bill must provide that flexibility for the licensing laws and the facilitation of fast-track planning permission for the pavement cafés. The Government’s bounce-back loans scheme is useful and has the potential to be of real help to business, but it should be more flexible and allow much easier access to funds.

There are other ways in which Ministers can provide hugely valuable support through this Bill. For instance, they are enabled to help ease the backlog in vehicle testing and driving licences for goods, passenger and public service vehicles. Steps such as providing an easement on construction working hours and on the expiry of planning approvals would also make a real difference.

Some of the provisions in this Bill extend to Northern Ireland, and in fact the Northern Ireland Assembly gives legislative consent to this Bill today.

There are certain areas, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that are vital to the economy and should be included. High streets have been decimated during lockdown. On one day alone last week, 6,000 jobs were lost in the retail sector. Sadly, there are many more closures to come; indeed, there is a real fear that we could return to the high levels of unemployment last seen in the 1980s. Therefore, will the Minister give us his view about including in the Bill, albeit as a temporary measure, the expansion of business improvement districts, extending the towns fund, which currently relates to 101 towns, and rethinking permitted development rights as well as commercial rates? Perhaps he will write to me if he cannot answer those points when he winds up.

I understand that the Chancellor will deliver a speech on the economy on Wednesday. I ask the Minister to press his colleagues in the Treasury for the inclusion of fixed fiscal flexibility measures and substantial job creation plans. In the medium term, we must also draw up detailed plans for the regeneration of our town centres, supported by the Government.

I support the provisions in the Bill, but feel that there are opportunities for other areas, including the retail sector, to be included, because they are a vital part of business, a vital part of planning and a vital part of the economy.

Global Britain

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Viscount is quite right. Obviously, whenever you import or export you are subject to the rules of the country you are doing trade with but, as we have said, we believe that we can come to an agreement with the European Union. We already have high standards, we are already very closely aligned and we want to make sure that we have a good deal. That is what we will be talking to the EU about. We are ready to go and both sides have now set out their negotiating mandates. Previously, we have been criticised for not being clear about our position: we have been clear; the EU has put forward its proposals and we look forward to constructive discussions over the coming months so that we can come to a deal that works for both sides.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, will the Minister indicate, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, when the statutory instruments dealing with unfettered access for the export of goods and services between Northern Ireland and Britain and vice versa will be published, as was promised by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, during the debate on Report on the EU withdrawal Bill some two weeks ago?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I fear that I do not have that information to hand but I am very happy to go back to the department and check on the timings. I would also say that that we are considering the best way to implement the protocol and will be discussing this with the EU in a Joint Committee and specialised committees created under the withdrawal agreement. I will go back and check and if I can provide some further information to the noble Baroness, I will do so.

Business of the House

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has been clear about this. Of course the House did vote in favour of permitting the Government to extend the military operations being carried out in Iraq on to Syrian territory as part of a campaign to check and then defeat—and, we hope, eradicate—Daesh. He has been clear that we and the coalition against Daesh will pursue people who are a threat to our security and to the safety of British citizens, wherever those people may come from. We act, as always in our military operations, within the law, but the message to anybody tempted to go to join Daesh must be that they do so at great risk to themselves.

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

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to my early-day motion 938?

[That this House calls on the Government to introduce a cap on the total charges any bank can place on overdrawn personal current accounts; further calls on the Competition and Markets Authority to note the 2016 decision not to introduce a mandatory cap on overdraft charges; notes the high levels of interest that can arise as a result of daily charges accruing over time; and expresses deep concern over the disproportionate impact these charges have on low-paid households and on those relying on insecure sources of employment.]

May we have a statement from the Treasury or a debate on this matter, because it is important that the Government consider a cap on the total charges that any bank may place on overdrawn personal current accounts? As a constituency MP, my experience has been that these charges place an undue burden on many people who find themselves in uncertain employment.

[Mr Lidington]

I encourage the hon. Lady to attend Treasury questions next Tuesday—28 February—when she can put that point directly to the Chancellor a short time before the Budget.

Business of the House

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the Department has said today that it has ceased funding one of the international organisations that was criticised. Our work with the others is now subject to a programme to make sure that aid money goes to, and is effective in helping, the poorest, as is rightly DFID’s remit for all its spending.

Aleppo was raised in the course of exchanges on an urgent question earlier this week. No one here can avoid confronting the horror of what is happening in Aleppo—it is the most merciless slaughter of civilians. We should not, however, conceal from ourselves the complexity and difficulty of an airdrop operation of the kind the hon. Gentleman describes, given the presence of Syrian and Russian air defences, and the implications of what even a humanitarian airdrop in the face of opposition from Syria and Russia would mean in terms of a requirement for force protection, and considerable risk to UK and other personnel involved.

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

Last week in the autumn statement there was reference to a rise in insurance premium tax from 10% to 12% in June next year. That will undoubtedly have a detrimental impact on many businesses, families, young people and older people. May we have a debate about this, combined with the impact of Brexit?

[Mr Lidington]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will find opportunities to question Treasury Ministers about this, or to raise her concerns by way of an Adjournment debate. Of course, any tax rise is going to hit certain people and certain businesses, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was quite open in his autumn statement in saying that this particular tax increase was needed to raise revenue so that the Government can maintain their fiscal stance, and in order to free additional money for other spending priorities, which were largely welcomed in the House.

Business of the House

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Any unnecessary death is clearly a tragedy, and everything possible should be done to avoid them. In fairness, I need to point out that, partly due to the NHS’s extensive preparation for winter, excess winter mortality last winter was down on the previous year, and earlier this month NHS England and Public Health England launched their Stay Well This Winter campaign, which last year reached 98% of the over-65s. The NHS is very much alive to these risks, and is taking action to alert elderly people to what they can do to keep themselves warm.

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

May I also associate myself and my Social Democratic and Labour party colleagues with the comments of the Leader of the House on our late colleague, Jo Cox? We must all respect people with different religions, politics or ethnicities.

Yesterday, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) and I launched the first report of the all-party group for the visitor economy. It was about supporting skills and apprenticeships in the hospitality and tourism industry. Many different types of evidence were submitted to us. The report said that there were core issues affecting apprenticeships in the fourth-largest service industry, involving the school curriculum, lack of proper career guidance, and lack of encouragement to people to go into cheffing and the catering industry. May we have a debate on this significant industry, which is important to tourism in many constituencies, and has a direct relationship with the economy?

[Mr Lidington]

I was glad to hear about the report that the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) have prepared, and she has highlighted an important issue. The Government’s commitment to 3 million apprenticeships needs to include tourism as one of the sectors to be assisted. She is right to draw our attention to the need for those apprenticeships to have proper preparation and the right content, so that the young people concerned can be seen to be readily employable. I have talked to directors and senior managers in the hospitality industry, and I find it troubling that they often find it difficult to recruit UK citizens who are properly skilled for the work on offer, which is why they often look to people coming in from other countries. As a country, we need to address that challenge.

Business of the House

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in Government time—this might well be a suitable subject for an Adjournment debate either here or in Westminster Hall—but I think that the House will be at one in joining him in saluting the sacrifice and service of those who served in the Indian army during both world wars and in saluting Jewish servicemen and women who also fought for freedom.

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

Will the Leader of the House facilitate a statement from the Home Secretary regarding the position of non-EEA fishermen, mainly Filipinos, who are critical to the fishing industry in the County Down ports and the ports of the west of Scotland and who have already been subjected to raids by UK border agencies? We urgently need proper regulation in this area. We have already had meetings with the Immigration Minister, but we now urgently need a statement from the Home Secretary outlining a solution.

[Mr Lidington]

Having visited Kilkeel a few years ago, I am aware of the importance of the fishing industry in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and I will certainly draw to the Home Secretary’s attention the points she has made. It is clearly important that we have arrangements to ensure that people from other countries who come and work here are legally entitled to be here, not least because legal status enables them to take advantage of the opportunities to work and, to some extent, access services they might need. Without legal status, they can so easily be exploited by rogue employers. I accept, however, that the fishing industry has for some time needed to take on labour from the Philippines and other countries, and I will make sure that Home Office Ministers are aware of this problem.