Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th June 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I shall speak to all the amendments in this group. I do not wish to say anything further about the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, save to say that I warmly support them, as I do the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

I come to the principal issue on which I wish to speak. Amendment 57 and Clause 14 demonstrate that there are two significant issues before this Parliament. The first is the extent to which we have framework legislation with Henry VIII powers—and with a vague statement that these are needed—while knowing that there is no opportunity for proper scrutiny and amendment of the powers that will be exercised in subsequent regulation. The second problem is what I would describe as the chipping away—because this is what it is becoming—of the devolution arrangements. This is being done without the consent of the devolved Governments and without putting in place a proper framework for joint agreement on how to move forward where there is a necessity for a UK solution. I fear that these issues will bedevil this Session of Parliament. They come to a head in Clause 14.

Clause 14 gives the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State power to make regulations in devolved areas. It is immensely concerning that Henry VIII powers are being used without any indication as to precisely how this is to be done and no real argument as to why they are necessary. It is difficult to understand why this area needs to be chipped away. What is the benefit for the future of the union? It would be useful if the Minister could say what he sees as the benefits and acknowledge the costs of the damage to the union.

I warmly support Amendment 57, subject to one matter I shall mention later. It is difficult to see why this problem cannot be dealt with by Amendment 57. This would leave the devolved Ministers to make decisions within their areas of devolved competence. Something like a common framework or some structure for common policy-making could then be used to resolve the differences. Using the twin devices of framework legislation and Henry VIII powers is quite the wrong way to go about our constitutional arrangements. I hope the Minister will be prepared to discuss these issues in much greater detail.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has already touched on the point I wish to make about Amendment 57. Its proposed new subsection (5) is taken from Clause 14 of the Bill as it stands, and seems a wholly unnecessary irritant. It is not constitutionally necessary. I do not understand why this Government wish to irritate people by further constraining the powers of the Welsh Ministers in a way that is wholly unnecessary. Again, a cost-benefit analysis, thinking what we are doing this for, would be a great step forward.

I hope that the difficulties inherent in the combination of the Henry VIII powers and the chipping away of devolution can be seriously discussed between those in the devolved Administrations, together with this House and the Government. I would welcome such discussions before Report to avoid what it seems is a further significant strengthening of those who wish to oppose the union for very little benefit in return.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 13, 41, 42 and 57, which look to formal consultation with the devolved Administrations and, in the case of Amendment 41, the consent—under certain conditions—of the devolved Administrations to any regulations made under this section.

As all speakers on this group and in the debates on previous amendments have said, the Bill involves wide-ranging powers and Henry VIII clauses. These are apparently justified on the grounds that what may be required cannot be anticipated, and therefore cannot be legislated for in advance. This seems a dangerous and spurious catch-all which, of itself, is sufficient justification for requiring formal consultation with the devolved Administrations.

This all relates to trade deals yet to be negotiated. It will hinge on areas of skills shortages across and within the UK, as well as the opportunity for UK professionals to practise abroad. Professional regulation must surely be founded on ensuring that any professional is safely and properly qualified and experienced to practise in all or part of the UK. Yet this Bill and the powers within it are specifically linked to trade deals, and there is a risk that deals involving reciprocity could lead to standards being compromised. This concern has been identified by the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House.

Also, given that skills shortages vary across the UK, and by time and sector, if a devolved Administration identify a skill shortage, will the Immigration Rules also be taken into account, not just the professional qualifications regulations? Clearly, that will be necessary.

The Government have stated that they would,

“not normally make regulations under these powers in devolved areas without the agreement of the relevant devolved authority”.

Right from the very beginning of the Brexit debate, however, we have debated what “normally” means. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has pointed out, it looks like a shifting definition, and one that is not to the benefit of the devolved Administrations—or indeed to the professions in the devolved areas.

In this context we should also consider the role of the assistance centre, whose staff should surely all be thoroughly conversant with all regulators, including in the devolved Administrations. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, would be a helpful contribution to that, because the assistance centre is a welcome recommendation, but only if it is properly qualified and its staff fully appreciate what goes on across all aspects of the UK. In areas as complex and specific as professional qualifications, that is a big ask, which must be answered. The scale and diversity of the professions that we are discussing, and the regulators that engage with them, absolutely require that any changes should be carried out only after consultation and, wherever possible, consent.

As an example of this, Scotland has long had an all-graduate teaching profession. It is sad that Scotland’s education performance has fallen down the international scale; however, that is not the fault of the teaching profession but of a curriculum and examinations set-up that is simply not fit for purpose, yet whose reform is not being tackled. We are not short of qualified teachers. Many are unable to find permanent employment, which in itself is a scandal. We certainly need to tackle education reform in Scotland. In that context there may be a role for teachers from other countries to make a contribution, but it would be regrettable if standards were compromised in a trade deal, and if those teachers were recruited while well-qualified teachers in Scotland were unable to get employment in the profession, which is where we are currently.

The UK Government say that they are working with the devolved authorities on a number of common frameworks. I also have the T-shirt as a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, as do five noble Lords contributing to this group of amendments. The Government say that they are working on common frameworks to help co-ordinate policy development between UK nations where powers have returned from the EU and intersect with devolved competencies. This includes the mutual recognition of professional qualifications: the MRPQ framework.

In an update covering 26 September to December 2020, the Cabinet Office said that discussions on the framework made progress during that period but that development timelines should be extended. It went on:

“Agreement was reached between the UK Government and the devolved administrations that both MRPQ and Services should be developed over extended timelines to allow for more work to be done. All administrations remain committed to working to develop and agree these frameworks.”


That is all welcome, but I hope the Minister will agree that, as I have pointed out, the range and complexity of the regulation of professional qualifications, and uncertainty over the changes that may be needed, require formal consultation to be carried out and consent secured. How will this happen if we are operating on different timelines? The Government may be out there desperately trying to negotiate trade deals while all these procedures are in the process of a long, drawn-out common frameworks negotiation. As we know, the common frameworks are well behind the schedule originally hoped for and planned.

They have clearly set out the mechanism and an arrangement—which those of us on the committee feel has much to commend it—that seeks the maximum amount of co-operation and consent, looks to have fair and balanced dispute resolution mechanisms and ought to be the model for how the interconnection and co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations is carried through going forward. It would be good if Ministers acknowledged that so much has been learned in this process that it should be applied not just to those areas that were historically part of the transition out of the EU but to all future ways of working, and the principles on which the common frameworks have been founded and developed.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 2nd November 2020 Lords Chamber

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

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for explaining the place of this in the Bill and for his proposal to try and make something of the provision. As it stands, it seems wholly separate from the other provisions of this Bill. It should not be there, and it is profoundly undemocratic. Its only connection with the rest of the Bill is that it seems part of an attack on the scheme of devolution. I therefore seek to argue that Clause 48 should not, in its current form, stand part of the Bill.

The Bill is concerned with the internal market; it is not concerned with the allocation of government powers to spend money between the devolved Governments and the United Kingdom or English Government. It authorises the UK Government, as it stands, to spend funds in devolved areas—education, roads—and, giving Clause 48 (1)(a) and (b) their ordinary meaning, almost any aspect of government spending, including hospitals.

Therefore, I have a question for the Minister: why is this in the Bill? How is it going to work? Let me put forward some ideas as to why it may be there. First, the Government might, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, has suggested, have the noble aim of investing additional resources into the devolved nations and the other regions of England. If that were the case, they might be doing the work alongside the Governments of the devolved nations and doing it as the English Government in their capacity as the UK Government. If so, why do they need these powers? They have done city deals and dealt with expenditure of this kind without specific statutory versions. If that is the noble aim of this Bill, it seems unnecessary.

There may be a different aim, which again has been foreshadowed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson: that the UK Government see themselves as taking over the role of the EU Commission, steering the use of such funding. If the Commission did it, so the argument goes, why should not the UK Government? In other words, it is an example of this Government doing something the EU has done rather well, but which they will never give it credit for. If that is the Government’s aim, it is fair to point out that the European legislation provided for the European Commission to set overall very high-level objectives for funding, and then to negotiate with the devolved Governments of Wales and Scotland as to how these objectives should be reflected in the programmes the devolved Governments designed. The European Commission, at the end of the day, had the veto, but it negotiated with the elected authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, rather than bypassing them in the way the Bill would enable it to.

There may be a third aim, which is that the United Kingdom Government, the Government of England, know far better how to direct spending and cannot trust the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments to spend wisely. Nor, if that is their reason, can they trust the people of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland to choose the Government they want, as that entails the choice between different manifestos regarding the way in which money is to be spent on areas of devolved competence.

As it stands, the clause strikes at that democratic choice and the devolution schemes. It will enable the UK Government to spend funds in ways that the UK/English Government think best, but which the people of Wales, for example, may have rejected. That is not democracy. In effect, it would give legislative underpinning to the now discredited principle that the Government in Westminster know best and the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have Governments with devolved competences, are not to be trusted to spend money wisely in areas of devolved competence.

In short, I can see no justification for these powers which is compatible with the commitment to the integrity of the devolution schemes. Last week, Ministers were asked repeatedly to confirm whether they supported the devolved institutions’ powers to tailor their policies and spending needs to the wishes of the people of the devolved nations. I understand that no such assurances were given. If Ministers wish to overturn the devolution settlements, let them say so. Let them show that the devolution schemes do not work and, in the light of recent experience, that we would all be better off in the devolved nations if only the UK Government could take spending decisions on matters that have been devolved, in place of the Governments in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast.

As it stands, therefore, the clause should not be in the Bill. If there are constraints on how this is to operate, they should be set out in the Bill, or a proposal of the kind made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, should be put in its place.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

The Bill appears to invite a clutch of ironic metaphors. In moving the Bill at Second Reading in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister drew inspiration from Adam Smith’s invisible hand but, by contrast, the Bill delivers a clunking great fist, and the Prime Minister’s oven-ready deal is at best not even half baked. The Government assert that substantial powers are coming to the devolved Administrations and, on the surface, that is true. However, the lack of reference to common frameworks, which we have debated, and the subordination of the proposed office of the internal market, on which previous amendments have focused, to the Competition and Markets Authority, all points to a centralising agenda. The state aid and financial powers clauses of the Bill—which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, do not appear relevant to the Bill’s stated purpose of regulating the internal market—raise serious questions, providing sweeping powers for the UK Government to intervene directly on a wide range of policy areas without even consulting the devolved Administrations, let alone securing consent and agreement.

At a time when relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations are at rock bottom, and with elections for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd only six months away, this is absurdly provocative and, frankly, foolhardy. Following the shambolic communication of the emerging lockdown in England over the weekend, confusion reigns today over furlough provision in Scotland. On the one hand, the furlough extension is UK-wide, which is welcome. On the other, it appears that if Scotland goes into lockdown at a later date, comparable support to that being provided in England is not assured. Scottish Conservative leader, Douglas Ross MP, is at odds with the Government over this. It raises the question of whether the Government are trying to force Scotland into a similar lockdown at the same time as England, not because the measures currently being applied north of the border are not working—it is too early to judge that—but just to secure funding for any lockdown. That is not the way to promote trust or make rational, balanced and objective decisions.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd [V]]

My Lords, I wish I had the privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, but I will be brief, in view of the lateness of the hour. I support Amendments 255, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and 263A, in the name the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The noble and learned Lord has clearly analysed the issues that need to be addressed in relation to the interrelationship of the Bill with the internal market proposals. The noble Baroness has eloquently spelled out the consequences of our failing to deal with that properly. Both amendments, therefore, are examples of what needs to be done if we are to respect the devolution schemes or change them to make them work better. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister’s efforts in this respect in relation to agriculture.

We must now concentrate on two matters. One is the way in which the internal market is to operate in relation to agriculture; the second is the structures needed. It is too late to begin on the internal market tonight, but I urge that when we return in September to consider the Bill on Report, we are in a position to look at the interrelationship of the Bill with the provisions to be put forward on the internal market. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spelled out so clearly earlier, we must have something to look at on the structures that are necessary to make this work. If we fail to do so, even at the eleventh hour, the consequences for the union will be dire indeed.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

I am not sure what happened there, but I am glad noble Lords can now hear me. I shall speak to Amendment 255, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, which I would have signed had there been space to do so, and Amendment 263, in the name of my noble friend Lord Tyler, which I have signed, along with my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. We have already had an important debate on devolution with specific reference to devolved issues throughout the Bill, and I very much appreciate the clear and valuable case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in Amendment 267, which I have also signed.

Amendment 255 requires the Secretary of State, when making regulations for England, to consult the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations and bodies that represent the UK farming industry. The scope of these regulations is a extensive and detailed, covering every aspect of agricultural production, processing, packaging, standards and distribution. Any significant changes could be very disruptive to the UK single market if it means divergence from practices in parts of the United Kingdom outside England.

Livestock production is more prominent in the devolved areas, especially in the more prevalent and less favoured upland farms. As I have pointed out in previous contributions, England is the main market for much of the produce from farms in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It matters, therefore, to Scottish and Northern Irish producers, that any changes to established practice and procedure do not interfere with farming methods and costs for non-English producers.

It also matters to English consumers if it disrupts or increases the costs of supply for markets to England. It would be invidious to single out individual companies, but I can think of a number in my part of Scotland whose main markets are in the south. The products are high-quality and well-received; indeed, the fact that the ingredients are sourced from quality Scottish farms is a key part of the branding. I hope that English Ministers would resist any measures deliberately designed to disadvantage farmers in the devolved areas, but lack of consultation could do damage unintentionally, to the detriment of producers and consumers throughout the UK.

Turning to Amendment 263, which I was pleased to sign, there can be no doubt that the protection of traditional speciality food and drink products delivers comparative advantage, which is of huge importance to our terms of trade. There are many parts of the world where the only visible expression of UK brands is Scotch whisky—where that is all you would know about the United Kingdom. It is one of our leading exports, if not the leading one. But there are many products that are distinctly British and that benefit from GI protection; so, are the Government resisting maintaining reciprocal GI arrangements, and if so, can the Minister explain why? The suggestion that EU GIs can be replaced by a domestic regime puts exports in an invidious position. Are there products from the EU 27 that the UK Government want to deny GI to? Do we want the freedom to designate English sparkling wine as champagne?

Over the years, battles have been fought to secure GI designation. Why should we now throw it to the winds? If we refuse to recognise established EU GIs, and it creates a conflict between our brands and theirs, it will sour the entire trade relationship. I support my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and his powerful analysis of what the consequences would be. I urge the Government to accept this amendment.