Agriculture Bill

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

It is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Dobbs, a Wiltshire neighbour; my maiden speech in this House was in a debate led by him.

I support the Government’s proposal, added in response to widespread concern in the countryside and the other place, for a report on food security, underlining the importance of UK food supply and farmers’ role in feeding the nation. Covid-19 has underlined the importance of this, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said. However, the supermarkets and the food supply chain did a great job. The empty shelves referred to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh reflected an initial lack of confidence by consumers, but they soon realised that this reflected a surge in demand, not a real shortage of supply.

Today there are a number of amendments trying to make the food security report more frequent—for example, once a year in Amendment 162—and to broaden its scope; for example, to bring in specific reference to household food security, which I disagree with, or waste in the supply chain, to which I am more sympathetic because of the personal interest I take in waste minimisation and recycling but with which I also disagree in this context. We should keep the review’s remit as simple and focused as possible so that it can be adapted to the needs and concerns of the day.

As a farmer’s daughter and a businesswoman involved in most aspects of the food supply chain in my time—I refer again to my interests in the register—I am strongly against a review more often than every five years. I cannot think of anything more likely to generate constant tinkering with the regulations that affect farmers and the countryside and continued uncertainty in a sector that faces huge change, economic difficulty and fragility —as we have heard during the passage of this Bill. By all means collect and publish data every year and have the first review in 2021 or 2022, but the major review proposed in Clause 17 should not take place more often than once every five years. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson said in a fine and wide-ranging speech, frequent reports would also lose their impact.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. No? We will move on. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen.

Trade Bill

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

My Lords, Amendment 60 is also in my name. I too have problems with the TRA as currently constituted, in that arguably it lacks independence and balance. It is in looking for independence and balance that the amendment has evolved. Amendment 59 very much deals with the independence point, and on that basis I strongly support it.

In Committee, I said that independence is important, because the TRA needs to be seen to be not a mere cipher for the British state but something which has its own life. There is a problem when one looks at Schedule 4 and sees that the chair is appointed by the Secretary of State, as are all the non-executive directors. The Secretary of State gets the chance to approve the CEO. The non-executive directors will always be in the majority and the Secretary of State has the power to remove them. On top of that, paragraph 34 of Schedule 4, entitled “Guidance”, says that the TRA must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, which seems to me to mean instructions. It seems to be wrongly titled. Therefore, I worry that the independence bit of my beef is not coped with sufficiently. I look forward to hearing something from the Minister to assuage my concerns.

Balance is incredibly important. This cannot be an effective body if there is no balance—balance of experience and background. The point is obvious. Nowhere in Schedule 4 do I see anything that gives rise to a feeling that there would be balance, but I look forward to being corrected on that point.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise simply to say that I do not particularly agree with Amendment 60. It is necessary to have expertise in the TRA. As I said on an earlier occasion, I am not convinced that having a completely separate authority is sensible. The European Union seems to do a very good job on trade negotiations. That, as I recall from my experience as a civil servant, a Minister and a businessperson, was done in-house. I ask the Minister to pause before agreeing to these amendments without thinking about them a little further.

Trade Bill

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

My Lords, I do not want to comment on the two amendments I have signed. I want to urge some support for the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I have in front of me Article 13 of the 1994 agreement which supplements Article VI of GATT. Entitled “Judicial Review”, it says:

“Each Member whose national legislation contains provisions on anti-dumping measures shall maintain judicial, arbitral or administrative tribunals or procedures for the purpose, inter alia, of the prompt review of administrative actions relating to final determinations and reviews of determinations within the meaning of Article 11”.


It then goes on to say that the tribunal must be independent of the authorities that have made the determination. It is an international obligation for there to be exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, proposes in his amendments. I think we need to pick that up and put it in the Bill.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for interrupting him. Of course, there is a requirement to have proper appeals, as has just been elegantly explained by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but I was interested in whether they had to be the subject of special tribunals or whether they could in fact be fitted into the existing court system. My main concern as a former business person is with speed. Sometimes tribunals, public interest tests and so on can be a field day for lawyers and the whole thing can take a very long time. That is not what we want. We want to be able to make sure that the interests of our industries and other players are properly protected.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I rise to speak to Amendments 249, 250 and 251. Several noble Lords will know of my lifelong concern for good-quality regulation. The Bill will, by its very nature, lead to the creation of a vast number of SIs of exceptional importance, so proper scrutiny is more important than ever, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, just said.

I am concerned about content, scheduling, consultation and time for debate. On content, I want the Government to follow the good practice of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, where making the draft implementing regulations available has helped to reassure people and made its passage easier. I have suggested five areas where specimen regulations might be made available: agriculture, customs, financial services, immigration and intellectual property. My amendment says that specimen regulations should be made available within a month of Royal Assent—which is what the Public Bill Office felt able to approve—but my suggestion to the Minister is to make specimen SIs available for our consideration before Report.

I understand and fully support the objective of putting extant EU laws onto the UK statute book from day one; anything else would lead to the utmost confusion. However, there is still much to ponder and much scope for mistakes. All these problems will be lessened by allowing all interests to see and comment on what is envisaged, as has been said. We need to know which enforcement body will take over what are now EU duties, as we discussed at length in relation to the new environment body. For example, in financial services it could be the FCA, the PRA or even the Treasury. In agriculture, the situation is equally complicated, not least because of the extra dimension of devolution. We need to know the criminal and civil penalty regime for each area and, as debated earlier, the approach to fees and charges—especially for SMEs, which I know will be a concern in relation to intellectual property and immigration. We need to understand the future arrangements for standard setting and the sharing of intelligence. Exemplar SIs could—and probably would—cast reassuring light on all of this.

On scheduling and consultation, I start by thanking the Minister, as he kindly arranged for me to meet one of his officials and those responsible in the Treasury for the SI work on financial services. This was very reassuring. The numbers on financial services are fewer than I feared—80 to 100 SIs—and I understand that they will take account of existing UK regulations. Hopefully, this will mean that practitioners will be able to find their way round the law more easily than they can do now. I believe there is some sympathy for my suggestion that it would be wise to publish SIs for consultation, which is the subject of my amendment and of others. The process of SI sifting and review in Parliament will, unfortunately, only allow an SI to be debated and agreed or rejected by either House. There is no scope for amendment so SIs need to be right first time. Will the Minister provide some commitment to publication of and/or consultation on draft SIs, at least in the five areas I have identified?

In practice, if—as I hope—a transition period is agreed, and thus for relevant purposes we effectively remain in the EU during transition, there is a fair amount of time to do this properly. But if the negotiations go badly and we have to rush for the line, it may be as well to have done as much consultation as possible early. Finally, and Amendment 251 relates to this, we need time to debate the more important SIs in a planned way. There is a substantial issue here which has not yet been fully acknowledged by the Government. One solution could be to group related SIs and to set aside significant time—perhaps one day a week—when they could be considered on the Floor of the House. These SIs will be mini-Bills, important future statutes as we leave the EU, and our existing arrangements for EU scrutiny are inadequate if this new need is to be met satisfactorily.

I believe that all noble Lords will want to know, before they agree to the significant delegated powers in the Bill, that the scrutiny system envisaged can meet the needs of the moment and hence attract confidence across the House.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

Noble Lords will be glad to hear that I will be brief. The European Union Select Committee and EU Justice Sub-Committee have been given estimates of the number of SIs concerned. Our estimate was 5,000; I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, say that it was only 1,000. My point is the same either way. In my language, the Bill essentially amounts to a gigantic pink ticket where we are asked to trust the Government. In the commercial world, one tries to trust and verify. You give out your trust, but you retain the ability to verify it, so that if something goes wrong you can sort it out later on.

This group of amendments tries to deal with three problems. The first is the mistakes, as the noble Baroness pointed out. The second is wrongnesses. We had a good example of these from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, earlier on. If we carried through a particular piece of EU legislation without thinking then a wrongness would be done. Third is the necessity for the scrutiny of Parliament; the verification process that follows on from the trust. As I look at the three sets of proposals on how to deal with these three problems, I have some sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who said that there is not really time to do the consultation suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I regret that, but there certainly is not time, whether it is 5,000 or 1,000. The ever-canny and thoughtful noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has come up with an ingenious way of trying to cater for that. Turning to the noble Viscount’s idea of a two-year life span, I am only concerned that if we are going to have to do 1,000 pieces of legislation then two years is probably not enough. The number I wrote down was five. However, that is a very useful way of doing it and my favourite route tonight would be the one he has taken.

All that being said, what is important in parliamentary terms is a mechanism for trusting and verifying. We will have failed if we do not get some kind of verification procedure in there. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument seeks to ensure that it is Scottish citizens who benefit from the revenues raised from the wholly-owned assets of the Crown Estate in Scotland. That was a specific recommendation made by the Smith commission agreement in its report on the further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. We have worked closely with stakeholders to make sure that we are ready to implement it, and to transfer the management of the Scottish assets efficiently. The draft scheme has been agreed with the Scottish Government.

Allow me to clarify two important aspects of the provisions in this scheme: first, the nature of the change and, secondly, the important protections it incorporates. Under this draft scheme, all rights and liabilities connected to managing these Scottish assets will be transferred to Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management). Revenues will henceforth go to the Scottish Consolidated Fund and the commissioners currently managing these assets will have no further role in doing so. Assets will, however, continue to be managed on behalf of the Crown and maintained as an “estate in land”, which ensures that any sale receipts must be reinvested. This is in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998.

I should also be clear that the assets include both rural and urban holdings, and mineral and salmon fishing rights. This includes an area that incorporates around half of the coastal foreshore and almost all of the sea bed, covering all the Crown Estate’s activities up to the 200 nautical miles limit. Your Lordships will recall the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, during debate on the Scotland Bill to ensure devolution of aspects of the management of the Scottish assets to the island authorities. As my noble friend Lord Dunlop said at the time, we believe that the devolution of management responsibilities will be quicker, simpler and come with fewer practical difficulties if the UK Government devolve these responsibilities in a single transfer to Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management). This is what the transfer scheme delivers.

A consultation is now under way by the Scottish Government to consider the long-term management of the Scottish assets. The Government will make a Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament six months after the transfer of the assets. This Statement will outline the progress that the Scottish Government have made on the onward devolution of these assets.

I now turn to the second point, the important protections set out in this instrument. One of the key considerations is that this scheme ensures the continued safety of citizens across the UK by ensuring that the transfer is not detrimental to defence or national security. The Scottish assets are key to delivering strategic capabilities for the defence and security of the whole of the UK. It is prudent to ensure that there are powers which the Secretary of State for Defence can exercise where there is an overriding public interest to do so. These powers will enable the UK Government to protect all of their citizens both now and in the future. It also protects other UK-wide interests, such as maintaining a consistent approach to telecommunications throughout the UK and keeping pipeline rental increases at market value so as not to hold back our oil and gas industry.

Lastly, the draft scheme protects the rights of existing members of staff as they transfer to Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management). Provisions are in place to cover dismissal, contract variation and pensions. They will ensure that the arrangements for transferred staff will be no less favourable than those that they currently enjoy.

We are now in a position to make this transfer of powers to Scotland smoothly on 1 April 2017. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her usual eloquence in explaining the transfer scheme. However, I ask her for help on a number of matters in relation to the scheme. I should say that I am not in any way wanting to object to the devolution contained in the Scotland Act 2016, of which this forms a part and which was the statutory embodiment of the Smith commission agreement of November 2014. I emphatically feel, however, that where these precious assets are concerned, we must be very careful to go no further than the Smith commission agreement, especially in relation to their status.

The framework document between the Treasury and the Crown Estate puts the status of these assets well. It is,

“a trust estate, independent of government and the Monarch”.

These assets are not therefore available for political uses. The first issue I will ask the Minister about is that of the onwards devolution which she spoke about a moment ago. Paragraph 33 of the Smith commission agreement saw this onward devolution going to named local authorities and to other authorities that ask. We debated this at length. As the Minister pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, made a ministerial undertaking in respect of the report six months after the transfer. In making the commitment, he also said that the UK Government would continue to press the Scottish Government on this issue. Can the Minister can update us on what progress has been made on that issue?

The Crown Estate is governed by the Crown Estate Act 1961, which sets out the duties and powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the general environment under which the assets are held. In her remarks, the Minister went some way towards this, but can she confirm that these provisions remain fully in force, now and in the future, over the Scottish assets that are transferring and the only real change is in the people and institutions who will be involved in the management of those assets?

The Treasury and the Crown Estate have a framework document, which I have already referred to. It is four pages of common sense in plain English. It contains two further important phrases:

“The Crown Estate ... is not an instrument of government policy”,


and, when referring to ministerial direction:

“A direction may be given only within The Crown Estate’s statutory duties”.


Can the Minister tell us whether a similar framework document is ready for 1 April in Scotland, given its importance in underlining the independence of the Crown Estate commissioners and providing clarity?

Lastly, I turn to the Scottish Government’s Crown Estate consultation document. The noble Baroness referred to the consultation, which started in January and finishes on 29 March. The document is 70 pages and contains, early on, a “Way forward” statement which says:

“The Scottish Ministers intend to introduce legislation which puts in place a new legislative framework for management of Crown Estate assets in Scotland”—


then, the part I emphasise—

“that ensures … alignment with Scottish policy objectives”.

Later on, it says:

“After the transfer, the Scottish Parliament will have the power to legislate on the new framework for managing Crown Estate assets in Scotland”.


Then there is the part that I would emphasise:

“This will include the ability to depart from the Crown Estate Act 1961”.


Could the Minister comment on those two assertions as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

If I may, I will answer the other questions that have been raised, and we will see if we can get an answer for the noble Lord.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked a number of questions following on from the debates in this House at an earlier stage. Devolution, as he knows and as I have said already, is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine. The Scottish Government are currently consulting on the long-term management arrangements.

On the question of whether Scottish Ministers will adopt the Treasury Crown Estate framework, particularly regarding the independence of the Crown Estate commissioners, Scottish Ministers will make their own arrangements for the oversight of Crown Estate Scotland interim management, consistent with the Scotland Act and the Smith commission agreement. The Crown Estate commissioners will not be involved in the management of Scottish assets once they are transferred. This will have no impact on the independence of the Crown Estate commissioners, who will continue to manage Crown Estate assets in the rest of the UK.

The Scotland Act 2016 will enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate for the management of Scottish assets. Section 1 of the Crown Estate Act will not apply since this makes provision for the giving of directions by UK government Ministers to the Crown Estate commissioners. Scottish Ministers are currently consulting on the long-term management arrangements, as I have already said. On the management of assets, the ownership will remain with the Crown.

To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, we will ensure fiscal neutrality by making a block grant adjustment, ensuring that the Scots do not profit from the transfer.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked me about the process for resolving disputes between the UK and Scottish Governments and how independent experts will be chosen. In the current draft of the scheme, we have ensured that dispute resolution processes will be carried out by an independent person. Where there is a dispute about market value, an appropriate independent person with specialist expertise will be appointed by agreement between the interested parties, or between Treasury and Scottish Government Ministers, as the case may be, and in the event that agreement cannot be reached, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors can be asked to nominate an appropriate person instead.

This is an important transfer of powers to the devolved Administrations. We want the administration to be seamless and to take effect, as I said, from 1 April.

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

I am not sure I have quite had an answer on the simple issue of whether the assets can now become political footballs: whether the Crown Estate Act absolutely applies, or whether the Scottish Government can depart from the Act or order the managers of the Crown Estate assets in Scotland to ensure alignment with Scottish policy objectives. Those are critical points—certainly for me.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Those points were considered. The order before us today reflects what was agreed during the passage of the Bill. We have consulted and come forward with these arrangements. I have reassured the House that the Scottish block grant will be adjusted to take them into account, so the Scottish Government will not be getting extra funding from the UK and Scottish taxpayers will continue to contribute to the sovereign grant. It is paid out of the Consolidated Fund, to which all taxpayers contribute and is calculated with reference to the Crown Estate revenue, but not paid directly out of it.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

My Lords, I will not detain the House for very long. When the committee met we noted that this clause was not a manifesto commitment. Accordingly, there is not that complication as one seeks to apply common sense. The committee was lucky to receive a written submission from BIS as to what Clause 11 was intended to do. It stated:

“Clause 11 provides for additional transparency over the expenditure of the union’s political fund. It places a requirement on unions to provide more detail about political expenditure … This information will allow union members to make an informed choice about whether they wish to contribute to the fund”.

We were lucky also that Nick Boles in his evidence said several times—I have picked just one instance—that we must make sure that this is,

“not designed to trip people up”.

The difficulty—I think the Select Committee was unanimous on this—was that the current clause did not “scratch the itch” that was outlined by BIS but certainly amounted to “tripping up”, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, have just given. I feel that the amendment we have put forward does scratch those itches. I therefore urge the Minister to accept it as it is proportionate, effective and balanced.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, the Government are committed to greater transparency for union members in the use of political funds. Members can then make an informed decision as to whether they want to contribute.

I am pleased that the Select Committee has also endorsed the principle that the current level of reporting is insufficient and that union members are entitled to a reasonable amount of detail about political expenditure.

On the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Tyler, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, the aim of Clause 11 is to make sure that all unions meet a minimum standard of transparency. The current provisions in Clause 11 ensure that where unions spend more than £2,000 per annum from their political fund, they provide a breakdown of expenditure.

I do not believe that we should start from the position proposed in this amendment, which is to place all the detail on the level of reporting in secondary legislation. Placing these requirements on the face of the Bill helps to reduce uncertainty about what is intended—a consideration which often appeals to noble Lords.

As I said in the Select Committee debate last week, we will reflect on the technical recommendations of the committee in relation to Clause 11. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, pointed out that the provision could mean that a union would have to declare the reimbursement of a bus fare to one of its members who attended a Labour Party conference. That was never our intention. We are not trying to trip people up, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested.

On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, the Government have always been clear that the transparency requirements in Clause 11 are important so that members can exercise an informed choice. The proposal for a review would delay this transparency and I cannot see its rationale. However, I have said that I am open to continuing the conversation on how best to achieve improved reporting of political expenditure in the most proportionate way, and on making the requirements of the provision less onerous, with a view to coming back to this issue at Third Reading. As I said earlier, I am already planning to see the Certification Officer, which I am sure will be helpful.

Finally, I turn to the government amendment. I am grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its careful scrutiny of this clause. It has noted that the power to substitute the £2,000 threshold in Clause 11 can be used not only to raise the amount but also to lower it again to an amount not less than £2,000. Raising the threshold would reduce the reporting requirements on unions. However, if, in the future, a Government wished to reduce the threshold back again, the reverse would happen and the reporting requirements on unions could increase considerably. I have listened carefully to concerns voiced by the committee. Our amendment ensures that any decision in future to lower the threshold would be subject to the affirmative procedure, and therefore subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Dean—if I have understood her correctly—that this would increase burdens. I hope that she agrees with me now that I have explained what is intended by this amendment.

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 49CA. I declare my interests as set out in the register, especially in insurance. The amendment is about old gold plate, which I talked about at Second Reading. I will first pick up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said in his thought-provoking introduction, which was that businesses do not care where things come from. I am not sure that I agree with that. One thing they certainly do care about is the level playing field. If a business has a European Union regulation and it is over-implemented in its home nation and not in its competitor nations, it is at a disadvantage and cares a lot.

The old gold plate—it should be called lead plate because it is a great drain on business resource—problem can be briefly summarised by saying that there have been three eras of transposition of EU regulations. In reverse order, there is the era from coalition times—2011—until today, where there are very good transposition arrangements: a good solid anti-gold plate look at any legislation and sunset and review clauses to ensure that things are self-righting if they are not quite right.

Then there is the period from 2006 and the Davidson review—of which more in a second—when the issue had been recognised and there were good anti-gold plate arrangements, but the use of sunset and review clauses was limited. Then there is the period prior to that, which I call old gold plate, where there was no self-righting mechanism for the shedding of the gold plate and the bringing into line of the UK with the other competitor nations of our regulatory environment.

I had a quick look at Lord Davidson’s review in preparation for this debate. I noticed that chapter 2 is called “Cases of Gold Plating”. The first three words of chapter 2 are “insurance mediation directive”. I was reminded last night by senior insurance industry colleagues that the 12 pages of that directive were turned by the FSA into more than 1,000 pages of stuff, which has been a source of great pain for my beloved home industry.

The reason behind the amendment is to try to provide a mechanism for getting the old gold plate reviewed. It is a mechanism which is compliant with the coalition, in that it is a one-shot mechanism—an individual, as a regulator, is in charge of reviewing themselves once and writing a report. That is all they have to do. It is a sort of reverse name and shame mechanism.

It was the best that I could do in terms of thinking up how one could attack the problem. It could be the case, but I hope it is not, that the Minister does not consider this a suitable Bill in which to begin attacking the problem. Sooner or later, for sound commercial reasons, we are going to have to tackle the old gold plate. I note that Lord Davidson’s report was in 2006, and nothing substantial has happened on his recommendations about the insurance mediation directive.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. I am grateful for the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson’s introduction. In the interests of time, I suggest I respond constructively over a drink to some of his more philosophical points. Yesterday, the World Bank published its Doing Business 2016 report and ranked the UK as sixth-best country in the world for ease of doing business—something to celebrate. This is partly due to the work on the regulation stock and the regulation flow that we are all trying to make a success. This Government want to make the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business, and the Bill is a step towards achieving that. So there is more to do, and I believe that adding regulators to the purview of debate on regulation will help to reduce burdens on business. I commend the RPC for its independence and honesty, which is well illustrated by the comments that have been made.

Iraq and Syria: Religious and Cultural Heritage

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 10th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I have much sympathy with the point the noble Baroness makes. The Government are obviously developing a number of programmes. We give priority to the human cost of these horrific conflicts, and much of that has been articulated. I have talked about the cultural work that we are doing, which also includes some very interesting and innovative things such as deploying digital archaeology in conflict zones. The religious angle that the noble Baroness articulated is a new one on me, I have to say. I will take it away and perhaps have a further word with her.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, noting my interests in the register, will the Minister comment on what moves the Government have made to clear this issue with the British insurance industry, with its world leadership position in the insurance of art and artefacts such as this and its associated loss registers?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I will look into the insurance issue and come back to the noble Earl. We have worked very hard to ensure that appropriate guidelines are available for the art and antiques trade and have very good links with the Border Force and the Metropolitan Police. However, the insurance point is a good one and I thank him for it.