Energy Security

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The answer to the noble Lord is that we need both. We need new large-scale nuclear power, not least to replace some of the ageing stations that are being phased out, but we want lots of new renewable power locally as well. Indeed, our strategy is to produce exactly that. I know that the Opposition tend to be a bit down on our renewable energy record but, dating from the coalition days, we have a fantastic renewable energy policy. We are continuing to roll out new renewables at a very large rate—one of the fastest in Europe—and we will continue to do so, subject to inevitable supply chain constraints as the rest of Europe seeks to catch up with the excellent policies that we have been following.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, how many new nuclear reactors do the Government think they might be able to get operational in the next 20 years with their new planning framework and Great British Nuclear? Will the Minister also indicate, to whet our appetite, if the Government were to allow a more liberal planning regime onshore wind, how big a contribution might this also make to our energy supply?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord will know, from his history of looking at infrastructure projects, that I cannot give definitive answers to those questions. We have announced the funding of Sizewell. Discussions are under way with operators for additional nuclear plants. I will be sure to let the House know when we have secured those investments and when we can make decisions on them.

It is difficult to answer the noble Lord’s question on onshore wind: it will make a contribution. Clearly, individual turbines make a relatively small contribution, but when they are scaled up, it can be quite large. Again, it is intermittent generation, but they will make a contribution, particularly in local areas. We want more wind; we want more solar; we want more hydro; we want more geothermal: the whole idea is to provide a diverse mix of energy sources.

Newport Wafer Fab

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord. That is why in 2016 we set up the Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult, with £50 million of funding. Since then, it has initiated over £100 million of projects and collaborative projects which have generated or saved over 4,700 jobs in the UK. Therefore, we are very active in this space. This decision has no implications for that investment, which will continue. It was a quasi-judicial decision on national security grounds, which is what the Secretary of State is required to do.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

Are there any other national security investigations of this kind under way?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord knows that I cannot comment on other live cases until final orders are made. I can give him some figures from the National Security and Investment Act report, published in March. The NSI unit received 222 notifications and 17 applications were called in. Since then, we have made 10 final orders, and acquisitions have been unwound or blocked on three occasions.

Power Outages: North of England

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My understanding is that there are currently about 20,000 people who are still without power. As I said, 950,000 have had their power restored. I understand the calls for the Army to be deployed, and its abilities are legendary, but it is important to recognise that in work such as this, safety priorities mean that only suitably qualified engineers can work on electricity network infrastructure. The military resource cannot support the restoration of electricity supplies, and network distribution operators have confirmed that military assistance is not necessary in this case.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister give us some idea of how much it would cost to put all these power lines underground?

Trade Bill

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Adonis]

At end insert, “, and do propose Amendment 3G as an amendment to Commons Amendment 3C—

3G: In subsection (6), at end insert “within reasonable time.””

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I move this amendment only for the purposes of precipitating a debate. The Minister rightly said that the other place has considered this matter three times, and three times produced a majority for the position that comes before us again this afternoon. We obviously should not impose our will again. I pay tribute to the Minister, who has been extremely conscientious in his handling of this matter all the way through. I add that the only reason I am moving an amendment myself is that I could not persuade the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to move one.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is the hero of this whole process. He is held in very high esteem in the House. The Minister described him as a force of nature; I would add that he is also a force for humanity in the House. When, as I hope, we ultimately we get to grips with the situation in respect of China and the Uighurs without the rollout of a full genocide—which could be in progress at the moment—the noble Lord will be among those who deserve credit, as will all those who have fought so hard over so many years for the rights of these people to be heard. They are people who would not be heard if politicians like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, did not take up their cause.

On the merits of the case before us, we have converged. There will be a process involving a formal review of what is going on in Xinjiang in respect of the Uighurs. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, would have preferred that it had a more formal judicial component, a view which I supported. We began with it going to a court and then to a judicial committee; we now have a parliamentary committee. While a parliamentary committee has limitations, I note that the Minister flags up in his own amendment that the committee could bring in senior judicial figures to help in its considerations. We could therefore get quite close to what was being proposed before—and I respect the Minister’s final remarks about these matters being considered in a timely fashion.

It is also very important that nobody thinks that there are easy answers here. Of course our relations with a great trading nation such as China—one of our greatest trading partners and a rising, not declining, power—are always going to be problematic. When the Government say in their strategy paper Global Britain in a Competitive Age, published last week, in respect of China:

“We will continue to pursue a positive trade and investment relationship with China, while ensuring our national security and values are protected”,


that is a perfectly fair statement of policy, which I think any Government would sign up to. I was a member of a Government who sought to maintain precisely this balancing act, and one of the very few Ministers since the war to have visited Taiwan. I went to look at its outstanding education system but I remember being told by very senior members of the Foreign Office what I was and was not allowed to say when I was there. I was urged particularly to avoid having any photographs taken with members of its Government, lest this be taken as somehow giving recognition to Taiwan as an independent state.

We have all been there, in a sense, and I do not criticise the Government for having to maintain a difficult balancing act. This is the nature of modern life, where we live in interdependent economies. I still fondly hope that it will be possible to foster better relations with China, including being able to boost trade on the basis of an improved recognition of human rights in China itself.

As the Bill finally reaches the statute book, however, it is worth us considering the problem we may be entering into. It is not because this issue is not difficult—we all recognise that it is—but because it seems, and I say this with all due respect to the Minister and his colleagues, that the Government are in danger of dialling up both their concern for human rights and, at the same time, their desire for improved trading relations with China, without recognising that there is an inevitable tension between those things. They seem to be moving on from a recognition of the facts of life into, dare I say it, wanting to have their cake and eating it. You just need to read the relevant documents and statements by members of the Government to understand that.

In what I thought was in many ways an admirable Statement by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons yesterday, he said of the persecution of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang:

“This is one of the worst human rights crises of our time and I believe the evidence is clear … It includes satellite imagery; survivor testimony; official documentation and, indeed, leaks from the Chinese Government themselves; credible open-source reporting, including from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International; and visits by British diplomats … In sum, the evidence points to a highly disturbing programme of repression. Expressions of religion have been criminalised, and Uyghur language and culture discriminated against on a systematic scale. There is widespread use of forced labour; women forcibly sterilised; children separated from their parents; an entire population subject to surveillance, including collection of DNA and use of facial recognition software and so-called predictive policing algorithms.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/21; col. 621.]


He went on in this vein. Let us be clear what is happening: this is prima facie evidence of a genocide, and the Foreign Secretary as good as said that in the House of Commons yesterday.

The Minister’s letter to us, which he kindly made available just before the debate, says that

“the UK is sending a clear message that we believe those responsible for serious human rights violations or breaches of international humanitarian law in China should face consequences.”

But the head of the Government, the Prime Minister, said in a meeting of Chinese businesspeople in Downing Street on 12 February—I know that Harold Wilson told us a week is a long time in politics, but 12 February is only a few weeks ago—that he was “fervently Sinophile” and determined to boost trade

“whatever the occasional political difficulties”.

Are we talking about prima facie evidence of genocide or “occasional political difficulties”? There is a bit of a gulf between those two statements. Ministers such as the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, whom we hold in high regard, are having to walk the tightrope between those policies, and I say gently to him: I think they will fall off.

It is not possible to square what is going on in China at the moment with a policy of expanding trade as if there were only “occasional political difficulties” when another part of the Government, and a large and increasing part of the international community, rightly say that there is prima facie evidence of a genocide and there must be consequences. The reason is not just because it is the right and humanitarian thing to do, although it obviously is, but because it is not a sustainable policy for this country to pretend on the one hand that we can boost trade and have business as usual with China while, on the other, there is ever greater evidence, which will become ever more prominent in the media, of an extreme situation in the western part of China that increasingly resembles a genocide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, in my closing remarks there are just a few points I would like to focus on. First, I am sure we would all agree that the tone of debate in this House has been excellent throughout the passage of this legislation. It is a testament to this House that we have been able to have these debates, and noble Lords should be proud of the improvements they have made to the Bill. I would like very much to join with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in thanking all the noble Lords and officials who have helped us to reach the point that we have done today.

In some areas, the Bill is not recognisable from the one that we started with. In particular, I believe that we have demonstrated through our words and actions during the passage of the Bill that trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. Indeed, I think if one wanted a fitting short title for the Bill, given the point that we have reached, that would be a perfectly admirable one: “Trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights”. Speaking personally, I find it impossible to envisage the circumstances in which Parliament would agree to any trade deal to be done with a country that is found to have committed the evil of genocide.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the issue of the content of the FCDO’s Human Rights and Democracy report. Of course, the Foreign Office publishes that report annually, and it touches on many relevant issues, including matters concerning human rights in the context of business and the private sector. I understand completely why the noble Lord has raised these points, and I will look to see whether this can be enhanced in further reports.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about the timing juxtaposition of reports produced under the Agriculture Act and any reports produced under today’s amendment. I am afraid to say to the noble Baroness that, as no process has yet been put in place in relation to reports being produced under today’s amendment, her question is unanswerable.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I can confirm that the Office for Investment is not in the process of negotiating any investment agreements with China. Again, I can also confirm that we have no preferential trade agreements in place with China.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, himself stated in one of our earlier debates, with a memorable reference to Banquo’s ghost, that the reason he was tabling an amendment was so that the other place could take up the baton and adapt and improve his amendment. Similar statements were made by my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. This place has discharged its duties by asking those in the other place to reconsider; they have reconsidered and sent back an amendment.

I believe that the amendment passed for the second time by the other place is a reasonable and proportionate compromise that will ensure that the voice of Parliament is heard loudly and clearly on this vitally important issue going forward. The decisions to be made on future trade agreements are, of course, political decisions to be taken by the Government, but with appropriate oversight from Parliament. This is what the amendment before us now guarantees, and noble Lords can and should take pride in the knowledge that the Bill might very well not have contained such guarantees—indeed, I will go further and say that there are no circumstances in which the Bill would have contained those guarantees were it not for the sustained and passionate representations that Members on all sides of this Chamber have made over recent months. Again, I believe that the House can take pride in that, and I offer my sincere gratitude to all Members who have contributed to the debates we have had on this issue.

I hope that noble Lords can now come together to support the Government’s approach, pass this amendment and progress this Trade Bill on its way, at long last, to becoming a Trade Act, content in the knowledge that we have fulfilled our constitutional obligations and—if I may say—have done so in the most searching, diligent and passionate manner. I say to noble Lords that they have undoubtedly made this a better Bill.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Motion A1 withdrawn.

Trade Bill

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend has just made an enormously powerful speech, and two points in particular will impress themselves on the House. The first is that the Government’s position in saying that it should be for the courts to decide whether a genocide is taking place but not giving them any powers even to offer an opinion on that fact is a recipe for inaction. It is a recipe for inaction in one of the worst causes imaginable because we are talking about genocide. It is a striking fact that, historically, the British Government have never declared a genocide to be in progress before it has been completed. We have to wrestle with the legacy of history. We did not do it in respect of Stalin; we did not do it in respect of Hitler. We have afterwards taught our children in schools about the horrors of genocide against the Jews and against many other races which those dictators and others carried through, so we should learn the lessons and seek to stop genocides in future.

The second powerful point made by my noble friend is that part of the reason why we should go down the route which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has so convincingly laid out for us is not simply to reveal a genocide that is currently in progress—or may be; that is to be determined, but there is very good circumstantial evidence which should be tested and courts are good at doing so—but to limit the further extension of that atrocity while it is happening. We should do that rather than doing what may well happen, which is that in 20 or 30 years’ time, when people may talk about Xi Jinping in the same way as they talk about Stalin and Hitler, we ask: what are the lessons and why did we not learn them at the time?

The course proposed today seems not only deeply moral but relevant in terms of our own capacity to avoid greater horrors and problems that we ourselves will have to face. The noble Lord referred to a red line that he has; we should be much more worried about the red wall which we face in respect of Xi Jinping. That will have to be addressed over time, and it is much better that we get the measure of it earlier rather than later. Surely the lesson from such dictators in the past is that there was a moment when it was possible to stand up to them and find a way through that did not involve extreme action. We could all look at it in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I had a good-natured exchange last time about what he sees as the great weakness of the Foreign Office. It has not always been weak. My great hero is Ernie Bevin because he stood up to Stalin after 1945 and we did not have to repeat the horrors of another full-scale war. There is plenty of combustible material in respect of China that could lead to war in future. We have only to look at what is going on in Hong Kong and Taiwan, let alone what is going on inside China itself. These matters are weighty. My noble friend said that some votes matter more than others. One reason for that is the consequences of action and inaction, and there is no bigger set of issues than those that we are addressing today.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said that the Minister, for whom we have a high regard, had been handed a poisoned chalice. We are very glad to see that he is still well on the Government Front Bench and will be in a condition to reply to this debate at the end. However—if I may use a Chinese analogy—in trying to persuade us not to agree to this amendment, what the Minister has done is offer us a very Chinese artefact: a paper tiger. He has made all kinds of imprecations as to what might happen if we agree to the amendment. Apparently, the constitution is going to be ripped up forthwith, which we are doing by the back door—what a large back door; an extraordinary number of people appear to be walking through it in remarkable unison. We were told that the amendment would somehow go against the wishes of the elected House. On the previous amendment, where the Minister told us not to be seduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, he said that there was a resounding majority in the other place, which was why we should not insist on it. Not only was the majority when the Commons voted on the first of these amendments only 15 but, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly said, there was not a vote on the amendment in the name of noble Lord, Lord Alton; there was a resounding silence on it from the House of Commons. We should therefore resoundingly ask the House of Commons resoundingly to resolve its silence; that is our duty in respect of the amendment before us.

On the second element of the paper tiger the Minister put forward, he said, in establishing his red line, that the Government would not agree to expand the jurisdiction of the courts to assess the existence of genocide. But we are a parliamentary democracy. It is not for the Government to say whether the courts should assess whether genocide has taken place. It is for Parliament to legislate on whether the courts should have that power.

The Minister gave us a constitutional lecture on the separation of powers. It is not for the Government to tell the courts what they will and will not consider. That is for Parliament, making the law, to determine. It does not matter what the Government’s red line is; the issue is what Parliament’s red line is, and we do not know that yet, because the House of Commons has not had the opportunity to give its opinion. This House has given its opinion twice, which is unusual, since, normally, in ping-pong, we start to become faint-hearted and susceptible to the arguments about the role of this House and all that. Unusually, this House has had larger majorities as we have considered this matter again. I suspect there will be a very decisive majority at the end of this debate, too. I strongly urge all noble Lords who sympathise with the arguments, but are in doubt about what they should do, to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because that will ensure this has the best possible consideration by the House of Commons.

I will make one final point about the red line and the red wall. The issues we face are extremely grave. If you read about the conversation between President Biden and President Xi Jinping, although there is a determination to have decent bilateral relationships, there is no clear meeting of minds between those two great powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly said, it would be disingenuous of Her Majesty’s Government to pretend that there in respect of the United Kingdom, too.

Many noble Lords may read a thing called China Daily, which we have circulated free to us—the propaganda sheets of the Chinese Government. China Daily’s account of that conversation should leave one in no doubt about what Xi Jinping said. According to its interpretation, he said:

“China hopes the US respects China’s core interests and cautiously deals with matters related to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Xinjiang, which are China’s domestic issues concerning the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”


On the opposite page, in a remarkable story headlined “Reporting the truth about China”, there is a whole series of assertions and lies about what is going on Xinjiang, including the claim that there are no events that are out of order taking place there, that the re-education camps are to improve the employment prospects of the Uighurs and nothing more, and that in the BBC facts have been “twisted” and the situation

“has been angled to give a certain, preconceived message.”

Of course, since we last debated this issue, the BBC has been banned from China and Hong Kong.

That brings us back to the need to have a clear assessment of what is going on, attracting and weighing evidence. That is the fundamental purpose of this amendment. When this matter was last considered by the House of Commons—in the strange procedure that did not actually allow a vote to take place on the key issue—Greg Hands said:

“Fundamentally, it is right and proper that Parliament takes a position on credible reports of genocide relating to proposed free trade agreements rather than, in effect, subcontracting responsibility to the courts to tell us what to think.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/21; col. 219.]


Parliament is not subcontracting responsibility to the courts. On the contrary, it is asking eminent judicial figures and the courts to report on and expose the facts, so we know what is happening. Once those facts have been exposed, it is for Parliament and the Government to decide what action should follow. But we will not get that action unless we have the facts. This is a circular process: we need the facts; we need proper inquiry; we need measured judgments made on them just so that Ministers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, can make balanced judgments in due course.

We do not want, in 20 or 30 years’ time, to have to spend time in our schools teaching our young people about the genocide in China in the 2020s that we did nothing to resist, involving what could be terrible consequences in terms of the relationships between the great powers, because we were not even prepared to consider whether a genocide was taking place.

Trade Bill

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Polak; I did not realise we had so much in common. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Alton, on their moving speeches. I support them and very much hope that there will be a vast majority in favour.

I have been an elected, and now appointed, politician for more than 20 years and in all those years, I have seen critiquing the Government, whichever side they were, as good sport; it is what small parties are for and what opposition is. In the last year, though, there have been two well-publicised, well-known events that have brought home to me just how morally bankrupt this Government are. The first was the decision to restart arms sales to Saudi Arabia, calling the possible war crimes against the Yemenis “isolated incidents”, and the second was their inability to see that feeding hungry schoolchildren is actually a moral imperative. They had to be shamed into it by a footballer who had principles. Well done, Marcus Rashford; thank God for people like him. So, this Government actually need these amendments to do the right thing.

During consideration of the last set of amendments, the Minister took a dig that was slightly below the belt, saying that I was implying that officials were not competent and got us bad trade deals. My point is not that the officials were at fault; rather, they are operating in a political climate of inept and, worse, incompetent government. We have to do the right thing here today. We have to vote for these amendments because that is the only way of making sure that our Government do the right thing.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard many powerful speeches today. If I may say so, the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is one of the most powerful I have ever heard in the House. He made an utterly compelling case for sending this issue back to the House of Commons. Purely as a matter of parliamentary protocol, we should do so, and not only because, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, rightly said, the opportunity for the Government to honour their own commitment to seek a compromise can arise only if this matter goes back to the Commons, but because the current amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has addressed the points made in the Commons speech last week by Greg Hands, the Minister for International Trade, about why we should not agree to the earlier Alton amendment.

Greg Hands said in the House of Commons last Tuesday:

“Nobody denies the importance and seriousness of the situation in Xinjiang … or that human rights cannot and should not be traded away in a trade agreement or anything like it.”


He went on to say that the Government are clear

“that doing more trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. In fact, as I am sure my hon. and right hon. Friends will agree, there is a strong positive correlation between countries that trade freely and human rights”.

However, he said that the House of Commons should not agree to the then amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because it

“would, in effect, take out of the hands of Government their prerogative powers to conduct international relations with regard to trade”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/21; cols. 796-97.]

The current Alton amendment meets that point entirely. It does not take prerogative powers out of the hands of the Government; rather, it enables Parliament and government to be better informed. They could not be better informed than by the advice and judgment of the High Court, and other courts in the land, on the specific issue of whether genocide is being committed. It does not even matter whether the Government intend to come back with further proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already met the test which Greg Hands set last week.

On the wider question, where I have some sympathy with the Minister, there are wider issues involved here —of course there are. When I was a Minister, I visited China and had substantial dealings with them. Those who of us who have been engaged in these events for many years are aware that we have a growing China problem, which is not just about the Uighurs and potential genocide. It is also about Taiwan, Hong Kong and China’s belt and road initiative. What we have in Xi Jinping is essentially a leader who is not so new now—his leadership is 10 or 11 years old—but who is increasingly Stalinist. It was reasonable to think in the decades after Deng—although, of course, Tiananmen Square was a wake-up call—that China might be on a more liberal path and that we should move accordingly. It turns out that that was a mistake. We all make mistakes, and there has been a significant change in circumstance. The Xi Jinping decision to essentially abolish what passes for the Chinese constitution at the end of his original 10-year term was clearly a massive wake-up call. Many of the worst atrocities being reported now, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to, have flowed from the radicalisation of his regime, and we have to respond accordingly.

We have been here before. I said that the regime was increasingly Stalinist. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in a powerful speech, did not exhibit himself to be a great fan of the Foreign Office. He used certain epithets about it, which might indicate its weakness or pusillanimity, and so on. I have spent a large part of the last two years researching and writing about Ernest Bevin who, I can assure the noble Lord, was in no way weak as Foreign Secretary. He stood up to Stalin with determination, well before that was fashionable either in this country or, crucially, the United States, where the early years of the Truman Administration sought to appease Stalin. Bevin stood up with a relentlessness for which we should all be grateful; maybe our freedom depends upon it. Great departures such as NATO certainly depended upon his actions.

However—and this goes straight to the point of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—although two situations are never alike and there are differences between the situation with China today and with the Soviet Union in the 1940s and 1950s, one hugely important commonality is that there was then a distinct absence of knowledge about, and much controversy about, what was actually going on in Russia. Many people, predominantly but not exclusively on the left in politics, I am ashamed to say, thought that Soviet Russia was “a new civilisation”—to use the phrase in the famous book by the Webbs. They thought that it had found a new pathway to success and prosperity which we should honour. What goes straight to the point of this amendment is that they constantly poured cold water on reports coming out of Russia that there were massive abuses of human rights which verged on genocide, and which we now know were genocide.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I think I was on mute for a minute there.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

Keep it up.

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, says, “Keep it up,” which I know is a sentiment widely shared.

Noble Lords have been clear throughout this debate on the UKIM Bill about their support for the common frameworks programme. I and the Government concur with those sentiments, and I reiterate the Government’s continued commitment to this programme. I am pleased to update your Lordships’ House that common frameworks are developing well, with three common frameworks currently undergoing scrutiny, including in this House’s committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews—and I pay tribute to the work of that committee.

Out of 33 active frameworks that we have assessed are needed, we expect 30 to be agreed by the end of 2020, mostly on a provisional basis, pending scrutiny by Parliament and the devolved legislatures. The common frameworks programme embodies the value of strong intergovernmental relations. The UK Government and the devolved Administrations are working together, on a voluntary basis, in support of cohesive policy-making and the maintenance of high standards in respect of the specific needs of each part of the United Kingdom. While recognising this positive collaboration, we also need to acknowledge that the common frameworks were always intended to cover only a specific set of issues where powers are returning from the EU. Common frameworks support the functioning of the internal market but cannot by themselves ensure regulatory coherence across the whole UK internal market—the key objective of this Bill.

As the Government have noted previously, we regret that the Scottish Government walked away from the joint internal market workstream in spring 2019. Detailed engagement has been ongoing with the Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive on this Bill, and the door remains open to the Scottish Government to join similar discussions. The strength of common frameworks lies in the fact that they provide a forum for discussion and collaboration, with a clear process in defined, but limited, areas of economic activity.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his thoughtful participation in these debates and his considered amendments to the Bill, which he has now partly revised. I welcome also the willingness of the noble and learned Lord to continue engaging in discussions on his amendment with my officials, and those discussions may continue. I also thank noble Lords opposite for their own positive and practical engagement on these matters. Discussions are not exhausted on this topic.

On the amendment before us, I have cautioned your Lordships’ House before, regarding the previous amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that this would lead to the automatic disapplication of the market access principles, creating a very broad exclusions regime, with the attendant risk of legal uncertainty for businesses and consumers over whether or not market access principles apply. It is the Government’s view that these revised amendments carry similar risks, both in terms of the breadth of the exclusions regime created and in terms of uncertainty. As to the latter, there is no safeguard against different Administrations attempting to implement different interpretations of an agreement into law, potentially leaving the courts in the unenviable position of adjudicating on these different interpretations. That would potentially invite the courts into the common frameworks process, which is inherently undesirable. Any such litigation would create great uncertainty for businesses. This is clearly not in keeping with the need to provide certainty and a stable trading environment for citizens across our United Kingdom.

Moreover, Amendments 1B and 1C prevent the introduction by a UK Government Minister of any new regulations in any area where discussions under the common frameworks process are ongoing. This could mean Ministers would be unable to act, even if there were an urgent need to do so.

Furthermore, the common frameworks programme was established in 2017 to manage the powers returning from the EU in devolved policy areas. In line with its voluntary nature, the programme has not been put into legislation, although I recognise that it is alluded to, in very high-level terms, in Schedule 3 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.

While it is a key objective of common frameworks to agree consistent regulatory standards, in practice there may be cases where divergent approaches could be agreed through a common framework. If this were to occur, and if any such divergence were to fall within the scope of the market access principles, we should be in no doubt that the market access principles set out in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill would apply. That means that even if divergence is agreed in a particular case, it would not prevent businesses from other parts of the United Kingdom being able to sell their products into the relevant place. This would ensure that barriers to trade are not erected through the introduction of divergent policy.

We must also bear in mind that common frameworks are jointly owned by the devolved Administrations. Any proposal to legislate them into this Bill would need to take into account their involvement in the programme. While we have carefully reflected on the arguments made in both Houses, I respectfully suggest that the approach put forward in these amendments brings significant drawbacks to the Government’s ability to provide businesses with the certainty they need to operate across the United Kingdom.

I and colleagues across government look forward to discussing further with our partners in the devolved Administrations and devolved legislatures to consider how we can capitalise on the ways of working agreed through common frameworks. We are also working towards concluding a joint review of intergovernmental relations with the devolved Administrations. These future intergovernmental structures will create a system that secures strategic co-operation and proactive discussions on shared areas of interest, including on common frameworks. The aim of any reform will be to establish an adaptable and effective system of governance that facilitates building long-term trust between the Governments.

We are, of course, open to considering how to put these areas of co-operation on a sustainable footing for the longer term, complementing the IGR review and the market access principles to the benefit of citizens and businesses. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Two other Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak—the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Foulkes, and I will call them in that order. I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, in respect of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that because the Commons has given a view we should therefore immediately defer, the proposition is shown to be totally absurd by what is happening with amendments we will consider later. Between the Commons itself expressing a view on Monday and your Lordships meeting today, the Government have changed their mind. We have the unprecedented situation where a Minister of the Crown will move from the Dispatch Box in this House—maybe it will be the noble Lord, Lord True; I cannot wait to watch this performance take place—that this House do insist on its amendments when, 48 hours ago, a Minister of the Crown in the other House moved that the Commons should disagree with the House of Lords. If the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is concerned that we should respect the will of the House of Commons, since its will appears to change every day at the moment—in response to the invitation of Her Majesty’s Government to take stock of negotiations in Brussels—I think our duty to the Government is to send back everything at the moment. This will give them maximum flexibility to disagree with themselves over the remaining four days of this week. Then let us see how the cards fall next Monday.

These are not trivial matters; they go to the fundamental integrity of the United Kingdom and our relationship with the European Union. I strongly urge your Lordships, in respect of all these amendments, that we obey the precautionary principle. If we are not sure whether there is an impediment to the proper conduct of negotiations or the flexibility that we wish to give the Minister and his colleagues in these negotiations with the President of the European Commission, we should send everything back so that the Government have the maximum opportunity to disagree with themselves over the next week. Let us see where we are thereafter.

The House holds the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in extremely high regard—there is nobody who has a greater grasp of the technicalities of the issues we are addressing. We pay huge tribute to him and his colleagues, and the assiduous attention that they have given to the Bill’s passage in this House. He made a very good technical response to the Minister. In his Amendment 1B, the words at the end of his proposed new subsection (1),

“and states that its purpose is to give effect to that agreement”

make it absolutely clear that any divergence will be within the framework of the common frameworks process. Therefore, it cannot be outside it under the terms of the noble Lord’s own amendments. The only issue—which I think the Minister raised; we are all very fair-minded on this side of the House and give full credit to the noble Lord where he makes persuasive arguments—is what happens if the discussions, during the conduct of which it is not possible to make regulations under the terms of the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, do not come to a conclusion. The noble and learned Lord’s proposed new subsection (2) says that:

“No regulations may be made by a Minister of the Crown with regard to a matter that is under consideration”.


I hope that the noble and learned Lord can respond to that point when he replies. As a non-lawyer—I fear to tread in this territory—my reading of this is that all parties to these discussions would have to behave reasonably. It would not be open to a devolved Government to keep these discussions going interminably purely for the purposes of avoiding a Minister of the Crown making a regulation. I say that with some trepidation, because I am surrounded by former Supreme Court judges and Lord Chief Justices who will no doubt correct me on that, but if that is the case, then I think that would give a response to the Minister.

I make no apology for speaking on this as a non-lawyer, because behind all this is a very important political point, which comes shining through the words of the Minister. The basic, fundamental political point is whether devolution is a reality or a sham. If it is a reality, then it is absolutely right that the devolved Governments exercising powers conferred by Parliament—these are no small matters—should have the right to engage in discussions about a proper level of divergence that meets the market access principles and common frameworks process. Indeed, I am amazed at how restrained these amendments are because, under their terms, it is not the case that devolved Governments can simply diverge, even if their opinion of the law is that they have the power to diverge. They can only do so with the consent of the United Kingdom Government, because there has to be consensus between them. The amendment from the noble and learned, Lord Hope, in fact gives a very narrow scope—but proper scope, it seems to me—for the devolved Governments to engage in discussion with the United Kingdom Government to meet the United Kingdom market access principle on a level of divergence that would meet their judgment of what is appropriate for their own territories. The noble and learned Lord gave the example of higher food standards. This seems be the absolute minimum, consistent with the proper operation of devolution.

The big underlying point, which we might as well flush out, because it is right to be frank about this, is that the Prime Minister believes—he has told us this—that devolution was Blair’s biggest mistake. He does not believe in these devolved institutions at all; we know that because he has told us. It is always a good idea when people tell you what they think that you take them at their word. He has said that setting up the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly was Blair’s biggest mistake. If we take the view that the establishment of the institutions was itself a fundamental mistake, then of course we would not want to give them any power—even to discuss divergence—because we would think it was a mistake. If on the other hand we take the view that devolution is a beneficial part of the arrangements for the governance of the United Kingdom—which I take to be the official policy of the Government as opposed to the unofficial view of the Prime Minister—without which that governance might well collapse, then it seems to me that the provision that noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, sets out, for a proper level of divergence to reflect the judgment of devolved governments on what is appropriate for their territories, is absolutely right. We should therefore insist on these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Here we go. There will be those who would say that the debate about the unity of the United Kingdom and the status of Northern Ireland might be contentious. That is a different debate; a different referendum would need to be called. In 2016, the United Kingdom was asked whether it wanted to leave the EU; all of it voted to do so, and yet one part of it is now to be held in thrall, to a certain extent, to the EU—a body that I do not entirely trust to respect the integrity of the sovereign rights of the United Kingdom, I am afraid. Therefore, I am not content.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

I am not sure how far I should follow the noble Baroness except by making a few obvious points. First, the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol were warmly welcomed in Northern Ireland; this is not being done to Northern Ireland against its will. These provisions are very warmly welcomed because the people of Northern Ireland see them as a guarantor of peace and stability there; this requires an open border with the Republic of Ireland, so I do not follow the noble Baroness on that point.

I also did not follow the noble Baroness when she said that the House of Lords was standing “in the way” of parliamentary sovereignty. We are part of Parliament and performing our functions as a part of it. In that respect, I pay great tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and—I never thought I would hear myself saying this—the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who have played an absolutely central part in the ability of this House to perform its proper constitutional role to see that the House of Commons is invited to reflect further on provisions that it believes are injurious to the public interest.

We have reached this point in a very convoluted way, because the Government changed their mind mid-way through the parliamentary process. However, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, likened the noble Lord, Lord True, to the prodigal son, and we welcome all those who have seen the error of their ways and repented. The process by which they do so is not significant; what is significant is the opportunity that this House gives to Parliament at large—including the Government, which operate as a part of Parliament—to consider its view on these big and important matters that are of concern to us. We have reached the right decision on this matter.

The only point I want to make is about the consequences because, as we now move forward, they are significant. To understand them, we need to understand why the Government did what they did. It was never my view that they intended these provisions to become law; they knew that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and a whole galaxy of the most heavyweight Members of your Lordships’ House would object to them—they knew that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

One Member in the Chamber has indicated he wishes to speak. I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not wish to cover the ground that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has just covered so compellingly. He has made absolutely compelling arguments for why we should send this matter back to the Commons again. As he says, it goes to the heart of the devolution settlement: you just need to read the wording of his amendment to Clause 48 to see why it is so compelling.

What the Government are proposing is a provision that says they should make financial arrangements in respect of spending in the devolved territories of the United Kingdom without consultation with the relevant authorities, whereas the noble and learned Lord’s amendment says that it should take place only with consultation with the relevant authorities. So the noble Baroness would need to explain to us why it is appropriate that these arrangements should be entered into with no consultation with the devolved authorities to which they apply. That is an absolutely fundamental point about whether devolution is for real.

The point I want to add, which is so important and why it is a vital that we send this back to the other House, is that what is essentially going on here is an attempt by the Prime Minister to undermine and make as weak as possible the existing devolution settlement. He said, and we should take him at his word, that devolution was the worst mistake of the Blair Government; he does not agree with the setting up of the Scottish Parliament; he does not agree with the Welsh Assembly; he has played very fast and loose with the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the way he has conducted policy in respect of Ireland over the last year.

We have a constitutional duty to see that that the devolution settlement, as constructed by Parliament in successive Acts, all of which have represented consensus settlements between the territories concerned and the United Kingdom Parliament, is safeguarded. This Bill is deliberately intended to cut across and undermine the devolution settlements because the Prime Minister does not agree with them, and it is therefore vital that we send this matter back to the House of Commons again.

Trade Bill

Lord Adonis Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly welcome the Minister to the House and I entirely endorse the three principles of good public policy that he set out in his speech: good government, clear thinking and decisiveness. Alas, they entirely refute the trade policy that the Government are following, which does not observe any of these three principles. This is because by far the best trade policy for this country is membership of the European Union, the second best is membership of the single market and customs union and the third best is membership of the customs union with the best deal we can get in terms of access to the single market and services.

The first policy—membership of the European Union—was the policy of every Prime Minister of every party and Government from Harold Macmillan in 1962 through to David Cameron in 2016. The third of those policies—membership of the customs union—was effectively the policy of Theresa May, and we have come to this pass because of the collapse of successive waves of good government, clear thinking and decisiveness.

However, we have to make the best that we can of the dire situation. I will make two comments on the situation in which we currently find ourselves. The first is to do with the wider trade negotiating strategy of the Government with the European Union because, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, it accounts for half of our trade and dwarfs all the other potential trading partners.

If it is true, as reported this week, that the Government are proposing to unilaterally withdraw from the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol that was agreed last year, not only would that be a major issue for the Government in terms of their breach of international law—we have seen that the Government’s chief legal adviser has resigned today because he is not prepared to implement that policy—it would also be a very big issue for this House. When the legislation comes to us, we will be invited to agree to a course of action that is, frankly, unconstitutional. It is also a clear breach of the Salisbury convention, which states that, in respect of major, controversial policies, Governments should abide by their election manifestos, and the Conservative Party’s manifesto pledged to implement the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol.

Therefore, it is my view, on reading about our present constitutional arrangements, that we should reject outright a Bill that involves Her Majesty’s Government abrogating the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol agreed by Boris Johnson last year.

In respect of the wider trade negotiations taking place at the moment, the two key sticking points appear to be fishing and state aid. Obviously, we want the Government to get the best deal they can in terms of fishing quotas. On state aid, the Minister said that he was the private secretary of Nigel Lawson, who would be absolutely aghast at the Government’s proposal to cast all current state aid restrictions to the winds so that they can follow a new interventionist industrial policy.

As it happens, I am to the left of the Minister and I actually support a more active industrial policy, but everyone who deals with trade and industry knows that, before you can get to a decent industrial policy, you have to have a stable economic policy, an open trading system, a stable exchange rate and clear, effective and understandable rules for takeovers and acquisitions. All of these are at stake in the Government’s Brexit policy and their trade policy in particular. I greatly regret that the Minister’s speech did not in any way reconcile the high aims and ambitions he set out at the beginning with the actual policy of Her Majesty’s Government.

Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2020

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I support these orders but, crucially, they depend on the role of the Competition and Markets Authority. I wish to put two specific questions to the Minister, if I may, because there is real concern about the CMA being both weak and leaderless; it is by definition leaderless because its chair has just resigned.

First, can the Minister tell the House when it is intended that the new chair of the CMA will be in place? Secondly, I assume, subject to what the Minister said, that the recruitment process is ongoing. When the Government seek to recruit that chair, what will their response be—because potential candidates will definitely ask about this—to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, in his resignation letter that he sought to set up

“a new type of competition authority, one better equipped to understand and respond to what most concerns ordinary consumers”?

Do the Government agree with that prospectus for the CMA in future? If so, pursuing what the Minister said about having a robust, pro-competition stance, will that approach be embedded in the expectations of the new chair when they take over the CMA, which I think we all hope will be at an earlier rather than a later date?

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I support the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in moving his Amendment 1, and I thank the Minister for his letter, which has been shared with us.

The duty of the monitor to notify creditors extends only to those creditors of whom the monitor is aware. What is welcome about Amendment 1 is the fact that it strengthens that. At the moment, there is no express duty to seek information about creditors from the company, and I feel that there is a very strong need for Amendment 1 to enable the monitor to do their work, given the time constraints regarding the moratorium under which they are working.

I was pleased to support the amendment in Committee. I noticed that in the Minister’s reply setting out why, in his view, Amendment 1 is not necessary, he regrets that he did not have time to respond fully to the points made in Committee. That raises a broader point about parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the normal channels will take note of this and that we allocate sufficient time to ensure full and proper scrutiny of a major piece of company law, albeit that for the most part it is time barred. It takes longer to correct a bad law than to make a good law in the first place.

If we do not adopt Amendment 1 today, I believe that that will make the monitor’s position more difficult and that the position of creditors will remain very weak. I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Bourne. In Committee I made similar points about the desirability of enhancing the independence of the monitor and there is no need to rehearse them today, but I stand by those comments.

Finally, I turn to the Minister’s explanatory statement on government Amendment 3. Generally, I welcome the government amendments, which are preferable to the original Henry VIII clauses, although I am mindful of the remarks of my noble friends Lord Leigh and Lord Trenchard in this regard. However, I question the Minister’s justification of Amendment 3, which would leave out the definition of “the relevant documents” and replace it with the words

“adding to the list of documents”.

The statement says:

“The power could subsequently be re-exercised so as to remove anything added.”


That seems slightly peculiar, and I would welcome the Minister explaining it in more detail when he replies to this debate.

[Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, after an hour and five minutes of debate, I do not think that there is much more that needs to be said in favour of these amendments. We have heard a succession of powerful speeches. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said, the speech that matters now is the Minister’s. We need to know why he believes that the amendments are not necessary, as I understand he is likely to say in respect of a number of them, and we might then come back on that, either now or at Third Reading.

I strongly support Amendment 75. I do not think that in practice it would make much difference, as it would simply introduce a right to be consulted. As my noble friend Lord Hendy said, it does not have any of the stronger elements of a requirement to negotiate or to take account of views—points that have been debated—although it is obviously a step in the right direction. However, the really powerful amendment is Amendment 14, and we look forward to the Minister’s response to it. It would, as many noble Lords have said, make it categorically and explicitly clear that the banks and other financial creditors may not seek to accelerate payment.

The Minister’s response here will be crucial. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, has told us that the Minister said when she met him that the Government expected that banks would behave reasonably and would not seek to enforce repayment requirements unreasonably, whereas a succession of speakers, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, have made it clear that it is standard practice for them to take every opportunity they can to accelerate payments and that they will do so if the Bill is enacted without Amendment 14.

So the House will want to listen carefully to what the Minister says in response to Amendment 14. If his argument is that it is his expectation that banks will not seek to accelerate payment, what grounds can he offer to the House to support that view when we have been given such strong views to the contrary?

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to address the amendments in this group, not least the seven in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I have not had the benefit of seeing the now-famous letter, but I look forward to considering that in due course.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, quite properly put it, this is detailed and technical law, but it is rooted in the purpose of protecting people. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, rightly highlighted the importance of meaning and how it changes and can be in the eye of the beholder. More significantly, I will say that everything that we have discussed today is to do with businesses which find themselves in the eye of the storm.

I cannot match the 40 years that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has spent in this field, but I knocked out just over a decade in it and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I was involved with a number of chapter 11, US-side insolvencies, as well as a number of pre-packs on this side of the Atlantic. I ask my noble friend the Minister: why the coolness towards pre-packs? Like all vehicles, they have their annoying whines and dodgy brake lines from time to time, but overall they were pretty successful, as conceived in the original legislation.

Does my noble friend agree that a lot of the difficulty around this Bill and the amendments we are discussing in this group seems to come down to an understanding of the fundamental difference between the company and the business? It seems that much of this legislation has been constructed with the approach of a company staying in business rather than the reality that the business does not need to stay within the company. Can my noble friend assure the House that nothing as currently drafted will impact businesses which find themselves, largely as a result of the Covid pandemic, in distressing situations? If he cannot give that assurance, does he agree that it is prudent to consider a number of these amendments in this group and subsequent groups?

Similarly, on furlough finance, which was incredibly speedily and effectively rolled out by the Chancellor, does the Minister agree that, if we fail to get this legislation right and the clauses amended as proposed, we will fail to gain the wider benefits from the furlough finance and employees who have rightly benefited from furloughing will find themselves with no business at the end of that period?

Finally, does my noble friend agree that there is a real, clear and present danger that, if we do not address the amendments, the reality may be that we save the company, lose the business, fail the purpose and miss the point?