Debates between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Callanan

There have been 10 exchanges between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Callanan

1 Thu 14th January 2021 Construction Industry: Retention Payments
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
2 interactions (145 words)
2 Tue 12th January 2021 Gas Boilers and Heaters: Replacement Programme
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
2 interactions (110 words)
3 Thu 19th November 2020 Fossil Fuels: Business
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
2 interactions (75 words)
4 Mon 2nd November 2020 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
5 interactions (1,692 words)
5 Thu 25th June 2020 Competition and Markets Authority
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
5 interactions (147 words)
6 Wed 15th January 2020 European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Department for Exiting the European Union
3 interactions (846 words)
7 Thu 24th October 2019 Brexit: Movement of Goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain
Department for Exiting the European Union
3 interactions (222 words)
8 Wed 31st October 2018 Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement Scrutiny
Department for Exiting the European Union
3 interactions (258 words)
9 Tue 7th November 2017 Brexit: Sectoral Impact Assessments
Department for Exiting the European Union
3 interactions (239 words)
10 Thu 2nd November 2017 Brexit: Sectoral Impact Assessments
Department for Exiting the European Union
3 interactions (240 words)

Construction Industry: Retention Payments

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Callanan
Thursday 14th January 2021

(1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Lords Chamber

Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

A lot of discussions are taking place between the Government, the Construction Leadership Council and different parts of the industry; we are actively exploring possible solutions and are committed to improving payment practices and working with the construction industry to take this forward. Of course, any solution has to work for the industry and its clients, and it has to be sustainable, addressing all of the issues: the need for surety and fair, prompt payment. As I said earlier, several policy options are being considered, including a possible retention deposit scheme and, of course, phasing out retentions completely. During the current pandemic, the Government, in conjunction with the Construction Leadership Council, have provided guidance to the industry on responsible and fair contractual behaviour, which, of course, includes retentions.

Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked, and we move to the fourth Oral Question.

Gas Boilers and Heaters: Replacement Programme

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Callanan
Tuesday 12th January 2021

(1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Lords Chamber

Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Treasury’s net zero review, to which the noble Lord referred, is considering how the transition to net zero will be funded. Alongside this we are publishing a call for evidence by April to begin a strategic dialogue between government, consumers and industry on affordability and fairness. We have also expanded government support schemes, which I referred to earlier, to those on low incomes, who are likely to benefit from them or to be at risk of fuel poverty. We will respond to our consultation on fuel poverty in due course.

Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and accordingly we moved to the third Oral Question.

Fossil Fuels: Business

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Callanan
Thursday 19th November 2020

(3 months, 1 week ago)

Lords Chamber

Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My noble friend is right to highlight the problem of recycling batteries. We are investigating the environmental opportunities of a transition to zero-emission vehicles, and are keen to encourage a circular economy in these vehicles, particularly for batteries. We are supporting the innovation infra- structure and regulatory environment required to create a proper battery recycling scheme.

Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, all the supplementary questions have been asked and answered. We therefore move to the fourth Oral Question.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

(Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords)
Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Callanan
Monday 2nd November 2020

(3 months, 4 weeks ago)

Lords Chamber

Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate so far. At the risk of agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I can say I have been listening very carefully to what everyone has had to say in this debate. We take these matters extremely seriously.

Let me respond directly to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. No: the CMA did not respond formally to the consultation when we issued it, but as you would expect, there has been extensive, official-level discussion on the design and development of the OIM proposal with the CMA.

Before addressing the individual amendments, I shall set out why Clause 30 and Schedule 3 should stand part of the Bill. I have set out the purpose of the office in previous groupings, and noble Lords will be delighted to hear I will not repeat that here.

The purpose of Clause 30 is to introduce the office for the internal market panel and task groups and allow those task groups to carry out all the functions set out in Part 4 of the Bill on behalf of the Competition and Markets Authority. This will ensure that the CMA, through the OIM, can carry out a set of independent, advisory, monitoring and reporting functions to support the development and effective operation of the UK internal market on an ongoing basis. Building on existing governance arrangements, it allows the CMA to authorise the task groups to do anything that the CMA can do under Part 4. This would include delivering specific pieces of reporting, such as annual health of the market reviews or requested monitoring on the intra-UK trade impacts of specific regulations.

To fulfil those independent functions, Schedule 3 sets out the constitution of OIM task groups, to which functions of the CMA may be delegated by virtue of Clause 30. Schedule 3 also provides for the establishment of a panel from whose members such groups may be selected. In performing its role, the OIM will have the ability to gather market intelligence from UK businesses, professionals and consumers to develop its evidence base. The effect of removing Schedule 3 would be that no public body undertook those independent advisory, monitoring, and reporting functions to support the smooth running of the UK internal market. The Government believe that this outcome would be detrimental to the future health of the internal market and to the benefit of every region and nation of the UK. Thus, it is crucial both Clause 30 and Schedule 3 stand part of this Bill.

Amendment 116 would insert a new clause seeking to ensure that the creation of the OIM was subject to a memorandum of understanding being agreed between the Secretary of State and Ministers in the devolved Administrations. It also seeks to set out how the OIM should handle and use information that it requires to fulfil its functions. It proposes that the office for the internal market panel and task group members should include nominees from the English regions and devolved Administrations. It also proposes who should be members of any internal market work undertaken by the CMA if it undertakes such work separately from the OIM. I will respond to these latter points later, as they are referenced within other amendments.

The Government have considered a wide range of delivery options for the advisory, monitoring and reporting functions for the UK internal market as set out in the Bill. We have concluded that the CMA is best suited to house the OIM to perform these functions. This option was strongly supported by a wide range of stakeholders during the White Paper consultation earlier this year.

The Government have sought to work closely with the devolved Administrations. For example, I would like to say how much the engagement with the Welsh Government to date on this Bill has been appreciated. I believe these conversations have helped enormously to ensure that the purpose and effect of the OIM is understood. The Government are committed to continuing to engage constructively with the devolved Administrations on the establishment of the OIM and how it operates in future in fulfilling its functions as set out. In recognition of the keen interest of the devolved Administrations in the operation of the UK internal market, these appointments will be made following consultation with Ministers from all three devolved Administrations. This will ensure that the panel comprises members who all represent the interests of stakeholders in all parts of the UK. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.

I turn to Amendments 117, 121, 122, 123 and 124. Amendment 117 would allow each devolved Administration to appoint a CMA board member, with Amendments 121 through to 124 setting the terms and conditions of those appointments. The CMA is an independent non-ministerial department with a global reputation for promoting competition for the benefit of consumers and ensuring that markets work for consumers, businesses and the economy. Ministers have no day-to-day involvement in its operations. It is for these reasons that the CMA is a natural choice to take on the functions of the OIM.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked how it is that the CMA deals with reserved matters but the OIM can address devolved issues. The statutory objective of the OIM in Clause 29 is designed precisely to draw a distinction with the current CMA objective and functions. This is wholly compatible with operating effectively and independently in relation to devolved matters, with a difference in focus on devolved and reserved matters respectively.

So that the advice and outcomes of the CMA’s work and the members undertaking such work are trusted and continue to be seen as impartial, it is clearly important that board members and the appointments process are seen to be trusted. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, board members must be seen as capable of overseeing the promotion of competition throughout the entire United Kingdom, rather than as a representative of any one individual nation. It would therefore be inappropriate to risk politicising the CMA’s board by accepting this amendment.

Having different routes to the appointment, resignation and removal of CMA board members would be at odds with the UK-wide remit of the CMA and would have the effect of creating two categories of member. I recognise the keen interest of the devolved Administrations in the appointment process for the CMA board given that the proposed OIM panel chair will, by extension, become a CMA board member. We have stressed during engagement and written into the Bill that devolved Administration Ministers will be consulted on appointments ahead of the OIM becoming operational.

Amendments 118, 119 and 120 propose devolved Administration consent mechanisms for appointing the chair and panel members of the OIM. The first two of these amendments would require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before appointing the OIM’s chair and panel members. As it stands, the Secretary of State appoints the CMA board chair and will appoint the OIM panel members and chair with full and mandatory consultation of the devolved Administrations. The priority will be ensuring that each appointment is on the basis of the relevant range of expertise and, crucially, is someone who can serve the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom.

During this consultation and the appointment process, the Secretary of State will aim to work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that their interests and comments are taken fully into account before decisions are made on who should be appointed. These amendments, on the other hand, would encourage a narrowing of expertise and risk the effective establishment of the panel. Consent would give each Administration a veto, which could delay and politicise appointments, which would undermine the OIM from the outset. For those reasons, I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment 125 would require CMA’s proposed and finalised annual plan and annual report to be laid before each Parliament of the devolved Administrations. I assure noble Lords that the Government share the concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that adequate opportunities for debate and scrutiny of the CMA’s annual report and other documents exist for the devolved legislatures. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 requires arrangements to be made to lay the annual plan and report to Parliament; in practice, they are also laid before each devolved legislature. I assure noble Lords that this will continue in future. Should this reassurance be insufficient, the CMA’s annual plan and report are made public, allowing each legislature to scrutinise and debate them if it sees fit. In the light of those reassurances and reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not move their amendments.

Amendments 126, 128 and 129, and subsections (2)(b) and (4) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 116, would require either the OIM panel or task groups to have representatives from each of the four nations of the United Kingdom. This amendment could lead to members of the relevant task groups placing regional or political interests ahead of the CMA’s UK-wide mandate. This would harm the OIM’s ability to monitor the internal market effectively. All panel members chosen to be on each task group should represent the UK as a whole when undertaking reporting for the OIM. For that reason, I am unable to accept these amendments.

Amendment 127 would increase the mandated size of an OIM panel group from three members to five. Having consulted the CMA carefully on this and other points, the Government are confident that three members are sufficient to provide the range of expertise necessary to undertake the work of a task group. Since the panel may need to be able to form multiple task groups at a given time, increasing above this number would reduce the resilience of the panel as a whole and create additional unnecessary expense. For this reason, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
- Hansard - -

I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

Break in Debate

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Not if the noble Baroness has withdrawn her opposition.

Competition and Markets Authority

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Callanan
Thursday 25th June 2020

(8 months, 1 week ago)

Lords Chamber

Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

At the risk of repeating myself, of course we keep these matters under constant review. We will see the outcome of the Digital Markets Taskforce that the CMA is currently involved in and, if necessary, we will take further action.

Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
- Hansard - -

The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, is not available, so we will go straight to the noble Lord, Lord Hain.

Break in Debate

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Well, characteristically the noble Lord has a great grasp of hyperbole, but I do not think that he is fairly characterising the situation here. It is a complicated area of detailed policy. We have an excellent competition regime in this country, the CMA is a highly regarded regulator and, as I said, we will consider giving it additional powers to protect consumer and business interests if that is required.

Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - -

My Lords, all the supplementary questions have been asked. Therefore, that concludes the hybrid proceedings on these Oral Questions.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

(Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords)
(Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords)
Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Callanan
Wednesday 15th January 2020

(1 year, 1 month ago)

Lords Chamber

Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Department for Exiting the European Union
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The noble Baroness makes my point very well. The reason why I did not was because there had been no further negotiations since that legislation was passed. There was nothing to update the House on. It illustrates the point that it is bad legislation, and bad to set out these precise timetables in legislation. There needs to be flexibility on behalf of the Government and of course on behalf of Parliament. Of course, the changes to domestic law required by the future relationship treaty will require legislation for their implementation. This will mean, of course, that Parliament will have its say, just as it is having its say on this Bill and on the amendments. It should be noted that the key powers provided by these clauses would be given to the House of Commons. Last Wednesday, MPs rejected a similar power in an amendment in Committee by 344 votes to 255. Noble Lords are welcome to ask the other place to think again about what powers it should have, but I am confident of what its response will be.

Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull
- Hansard - -

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I should have said a big “thank you” for the time he spent with me on this topic in his cosy office. I am afraid that there will be a bit more time spent as well. I was very keen that he cover two things. First, he covered his view of Article 218, but he did not go at all into the interinstitutional agreement, which really expands, quite dramatically—I read it out—on what the European Parliament receives automatically. It is not having to ask for it—it receives it automatically, which is quite a big difference. Nor did he comment at all on what David Davis had said to us about parity of information, which is a different point in fact than that made by the amendment. I was really asking the Minister to comment about whether the parity of information pledge made by the then Secretary of State in the summer of 2016 was still current.

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I did not cover that specifically. The noble Lord quoted the document—I have it in front of me—and it refers to the Commission providing early and clear information to Parliament. It is not specific on what information exactly should be provided and at what stages; its very nature is that of an interinstitutional agreement attempting to cover a whole range of different scenarios. My point is valid: the Commission controls what information is provided and when. With regard to his other point, the pledge still holds, essentially. The Government are committed—the Prime Minister said it—to provide as much information as is possible to Parliament to enable it to provide its proper scrutiny, without conflicting with the necessity to conduct a lot of these negotiations in confidence as we do not wish to prejudice our negotiating position.

I know the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will be very keen to hear my point about the devolved Administrations. We are firmly of the view that it is the responsibility of the UK Government to negotiate on behalf of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, we recognise the specific interests of the devolved Administrations in our negotiations with the EU and their responsibilities for implementing that legislation in devolved areas. We have been clear that the devolved Administrations should be closely involved in preparations for the negotiations, and will continue to engage with them extensively. Indeed, only last Thursday I attended the 21st meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations, where we had a constructive—as they say, full and frank—exchange of views with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and, at the time, the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Now that we have an Assembly up and running in Northern Ireland, I am sure it will want to contribute to these negotiations as well.

I chair one of the joint ministerial committees; I have been up to Scotland many times to take part in these sessions and my noble friend Lady Williams has also attended them. A number of UK Ministers go and there is regular dialogue with all the devolved Administrations, both on the negotiations and, up until now, on ongoing EU business. That will continue and we are looking at how that should develop and be taken forward when we are no longer an EU member state and we move on to the implementation phase. We are committed to ensuring that we have the best deal for all parts of the United Kingdom. The devolved Administrations are, of course, free to engage with their own respective devolved legislatures as part of this process, but the delay that would be caused by creating unnecessary powers of veto could, in our view, frustrate our ability to finish negotiations by the end of the year.

We believe that the Government have a mandate to begin the negotiations and there is no need to introduce additional hurdles or delays before those negotiations can begin. I hope the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will therefore feel able not to press their amendments.

Brexit: Movement of Goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Callanan
Thursday 24th October 2019

(1 year, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber

Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Department for Exiting the European Union
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The noble Lord speaks with great authority on these points. We accept that we have compromised with the European Union to get a deal. We think that these arrangements will be acceptable. The consent mechanism is built into them, by which, after four years, elected representatives in Northern Ireland will be able to decide whether they continue. During the implementation period, we want to work with the EU and the Government of Ireland to make sure that this new procedure works as satisfactorily and smoothly as possible.

Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the European Union Select Committee held a public evidence session on Monday and the Secretary of State gave evidence. He was asked during that session whether Northern Ireland businesses sending goods to Great Britain would have to complete export declarations. In answer he said:

“Just to be clear, the exit summary declarations will be required in terms of Northern Ireland to Great Britain”.

My question to the Minister has a yes or no answer: does he stand by the words of the Secretary of State?

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is right that some administrative processes will apply to goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. In the coming months, we will work with the EU and the Irish authorities to make sure that we can eliminate those processes in the detailed implementation of the new agreement.

Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement Scrutiny

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Callanan
Wednesday 31st October 2018

(2 years, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber

Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Department for Exiting the European Union
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The text was published by the Commission, but it was an agreed text. There would have been very little point in us publishing exactly the same text. We are committed to providing as much information as possible and will continue to do so. I am really not sure that it is the case that Michel Barnier is able to share any more details of the negotiations with MEPs or others than is happening in this country.

Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a more collaborative approach—we wrote to the Secretary of State on 23 October with a reasonable and short list of information that we needed to help us prepare a timely report for this House—would help the Government promote an atmosphere that would allow a greater percentage probability of them getting the meaningful vote through this House.

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Well, we are taking a collaborative approach on this. We have provided as much information as we are able. We cannot provide details of something that has not yet been agreed. As we discussed earlier, sections have been agreed and the “green text”, in the jargon, has been published and made available. There was extensive discussion around that. Ministers have appeared extensively at this Dispatch Box, in the other place and in front of Select Committees. The Secretary of State has appeared once in front of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and has committed to do so again when we have a deal. That is the same treatment that committees in the other place are receiving.

Brexit: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Callanan
Tuesday 7th November 2017

(3 years, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber

Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Department for Exiting the European Union
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It is difficult to do an impact assessment until we know what the final terms of the deal are. The impact could vary across different sectors and parts of the economy but I can only repeat: we will be as open and transparent as possible, subject to preserving our negotiating position.

Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, it has certainly been a very busy week at the other end, because, of course, there has been an exchange of letters between the chairman of the Exiting the European Union Committee and the Secretary of State; they have spoken, and they have even set a meeting. All that we have managed to do is to send a letter, at our end—and I was glad to hear the Minister say a moment ago that we would be put in the same position. I stress that parity of timing, as the noble Baroness also said, is completely critical, because we have a big staff and a big committee looking at these things. It is very unfair if the timing is not right, and I ask him to confirm that he will do his personal utmost to make sure that changes are made so there is parity of timing.

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the noble Earl for his point, which is well made. With regard to what I said earlier, sharing on the same basis also implies sharing at the same time.

Brexit: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Callanan
Thursday 2nd November 2017

(3 years, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber

Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Department for Exiting the European Union
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I have been in the department since Monday. There are hundreds and hundreds of pages of these assessments. I have read some of them. I do not know whether there is a specific reference to the north-east, or indeed any other regions, in the documents. If there is, I have not seen one yet.

Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, David Davis has appeared before the European Union Select Committee three times since the Brexit vote, and on more than one occasion he has promised parity of information for us and the committee in the House of Commons. We have now published 20 sectoral reports, and there are more in the pipeline. Therefore, we are in a very high state of knowledge about sectoral issues. Will the Minister go further than saying that he will have a discussion with our chairman about things and actually undertake that we will receive the same information as the equivalent committee in the House of Commons?

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I said, we still need to have further discussions with the chairman of the Brexit Select Committee in another place. Of course, following those discussions we will reflect further on what information we will want to provide to comply with the Motion, and I have undertaken to have a similar discussion with the chairman of the committee in this place. I do not want to go any further than that at the moment.