UK Property Ownership: Overseas Jurisdictions

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I said, the Financial Action Task Force that we established got the best rating of any country assessed so far in the round of evaluations in countering money laundering. We are opposed to it and we will do all we can to fight it, as noble Lords will want us to do. We intend to legislate on the registration of beneficial ownership and will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as we all know, “legislate when time allows” is a phrase to kick things into the long grass. The evidence to date is that this item is nestling very deep in the long grass. The Government have had the time and the opportunity to bring forward legislation, so can the Minister be clearer to your Lordships’ House why they have not done so?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

It is absolutely not an intention to kick it into the long grass: it remains a priority, which is why we published the draft Bill, why we invited pre-parliamentary scrutiny and why we have acted on many of the recommendations that were issued during that time, but there remains a lot of pressure on the parliamentary timetable and we will legislate when time allows.

Emissions Trading Scheme: Transport

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The effect on poor people, including in the UK, will be one of the factors that we will need to consider when expanding the ETS. These are important fiscal measures. We will need to look at them properly and consider all the implications, and we will set out our thinking in due course.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister pointed out, these schemes cover energy-intensive businesses. However, if the disorderly situation that is currently under way continues, manufacturers of ceramics, steel and cement—energy-intensive businesses—will not have any emissions to trade because they will have collapsed. Can the Minister clear up what is happening? Have talks between BEIS and the Treasury happened, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, or was the Treasury right that no talks have happened? When will the Minister let us know what is going on? Can the Government clear up this mess?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I agree with the comments made by my Secretary of State yesterday. There are always ongoing discussions between government departments on a huge range of measures, and I am sure that the Treasury and BEIS will be closely involved in further discussions.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I support my noble friend Lady Noakes in her two amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in her Amendments 63 and 68. The first list that I saw was the one produced informally by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which I was delighted to see and took as gospel. Now we have had two or three iterations of it. While that may cause us some confusion and bemusement, one has to look to the professions and the regulators that are required to regulate them. I start from a simple premise: I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. I understand what the faculty does, along with the corresponding regulator in England and the Law Society of Scotland—that is, the regulators for their respective professions.

I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has leapt to the cause that I supported on the question of why pig farmers were chosen for special treatment under the Bill. If I may pause on the completeness of the list, I am not even sure that all the professions listed on pages 20 and 21 of the impact assessment—which I know the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, thinks is no longer entirely up to date—are covered in the new list. It is difficult to see whether

“Chief engineer class I fishing vessel”

and

“Deck officer class II fishing vessel”

have simply been renamed in the list that we received on Sunday afternoon or whether they are the same in the impact assessment and the latest letter. What causes me some concern and confusion, in the light of the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is the foot- note to table 4 on page 20 of the impact assessment:

“European Commissions’ Regulated Professions Database. It should be noted that recognition decisions are captured at the generic profession level and not the specific profession level. Some generic professions listed may therefore include specific professions which do have alternate routes and/or which may be likely to be included in the new framework. This table is therefore likely to overstate the recognition decision numbers of the specific professions without alternate routes and which are not likely to be included in the new framework.”


Now I am even more confused than before.

In the light of the forensic work that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis has done in this regard, I am still not entirely convinced as to why pig farmers are included, and producers of chickens for meat production only are included. Does that mean that overseeing egg-producing chickens is not deemed to be a profession and is therefore not regulated for the purposes of the Bill? I go back to what I said when this issue was first raised on the second day of Committee: could my noble friend please state the legal basis for including pig farmers? Has it been correctly identified by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis? I would like to understand, when I meet them at Thirsk auction mart, whether they are included or not. Are egg-producing chickens included or only those for meat production? Perhaps more importantly, on what basis are beef and lamb producers and producers of chickens for other purposes not included? Is that a permanent exclusion or could it be revisited, and might they be included at a later date?

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, was being very restrained when he said that this is an unsatisfactory situation. We have to accept that the Bill before us is perhaps not fit for purpose and that we need to do other work on it. I do not think that, hand on heart, we can allow it to go forward to Report and eventually leave the House in this form, because we would not be serving well the professions or indeed their regulators if we did. So I support Amendments 45, 46, 63 and 68 and particularly the call from my noble friend Lady Noakes to pause the legislation at this stage so that we can do the work that, undoubtedly, my noble friend and his department would be delighted to do.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. Before talking about the amendments specifically, I want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I support his point, but the ski instructors of Great Britain are not alone in having their route to working in the EU cut off. We should look at the overall economic impact of this. Research by Make UK, which represents the UK’s manufacturing industry, shows that 61% of manufacturers regularly send their employees to the EU to follow up their manufacturing work with service work. Almost all of those have qualifications that until now have been recognised in the EU, but that is no longer the case. So this is a huge economic issue, not just for ski instructors and their families but for the entire manufacturing and indeed service sector of this country. The noble Lord has hit on a point, but it is actually a much bigger point overall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Ha!

[Lord Fox (LD)]

This is not funny, because the Government are trying to micromanage the skills of this country, and it is truly absurd that we should be debating this and a shame that the Government have got themselves into this position. This letter is indicative of a failure of precision and a lack of detail. The Minister stood up and said that the Government need the Henry VIII powers because they are unable to foresee the future. They actually need these powers because they are unable to describe the present and need this to retrospectively fill in the gaps that the Bill will almost certainly leave because of that lack of precision and the failure to understand the detail.

I am sure the Minister’s ambition when he first heard about the Bill was to take it through this House as quickly as possible and get on with what he considers to be the other more important parts of his job. It is clear that the Bill came before him very late in the drafting process, by his own admission. But it is now very hard to see how anything we can do to the Bill makes it fit to leave your Lordships’ House. The comments from all Benches about having a hard, long look at this before it goes any further are very wise advice to the Minister.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the comments in this debate, which, as they may imagine, I have listened to with a certain lack of enjoyment. If I may, I will come back to the substance of that later.

I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for their Amendments 45, 46, 63 and 68, which concern the regulators that the Bill applies to, as well as the duties on those regulators to publish information. I will start with Amendment 45, which concerns Clause 8 and the duty of a regulator to publish information on requirements to practise. We might remind ourselves of the purposes of this clause. Clause 8 is first and foremost about increasing transparency. It does this by requiring regulators of professions in all parts of the UK to publish information on the entry and practice requirements of professions. This is in direct response to our evidence-gathering. We found a complex regulatory landscape—I think the whole Committee would agree with that—which is difficult for professionals and aspiring professionals to navigate. Some regulators already publish the information listed in Clause 8, and those that do not should be able to prepare it within the six months of lead time set out in the commencement provisions relating to the clause.

The amendment’s explanatory statement by my noble friend Lady Noakes helpfully clarifies that “persons” means “professional bodies”, but I remind the Committee that many professional bodies regulate on a voluntary basis and not by law. The core principle of the Bill—I will come back to this again later—is that it applies to those regulators which are regulated by law in whole or part. The Bill does not apply to many of them because they regulate on a voluntary basis and so fall outside the duty to publish information under Clause 8. The amendment could create new burdens on bodies not covered by law in any other way.

Moreover, Clause 8 already makes provision, where there is more than one regulator involved in the regulation of a profession, for just one to publish the transparency information required. My noble friend Lady Noakes is seeking to provide for a similar effect with her amendment to a wider group of organisations in this space but, with all due respect, it is not necessary.

Amendment 46 concerns Clause 9 and the duty of a regulator to provide information when requested to a corresponding regulator in another part of the UK. This information helps regulators to check things like fitness to practise when a professional moves between jurisdictions within the UK. The amendment would apply these provisions to “another person or persons”—suggested in the explanatory statement to be professional bodies. Once again, this blurring of the nature of the bodies to which the Bill applies is unhelpful. Indeed, in this case it creates risks.

The clause places a specific duty on a defined regulator to make sure that important information is shared when requested. This might be critical to protect the public from harm. This amendment creates ambiguity around which body must fulfil the duty. It also introduces “must seek to ensure” into the provision. I do not believe this is enough. If there is more than one regulator or professional body involved in regulating a profession, then the law must be clear on who must provide the relevant information; it should be the regulator of the specific professional activity regulated in law. This is important to make sure necessary checks are done on professionals in a timely way. This clause is particularly important where a professional activity is regulated by different regulators in different parts of the UK. At our last count, the number of “corresponding” regulators this amendment would apply to was around 25. The provision in the clause is important, but any burden arising from it will be very limited.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for her Amendments 63 and 68, which seek to remove the definition of when a profession is regulated by law in Clause 16 and add a schedule listing the regulators to which the Bill applies. I think we have all learned things through the passage of this Bill. In particular, I have learned that a definition which was apparently clear-cut on when

“a profession is regulated by law”

has taken this amount of time to establish.

As the noble Baroness said, the list in the proposed schedule in her amendment is the same as the list of professions and regulators in the letter which I placed in the House of Lords Library on 24 May. Actually, I indicated at that time that this was not the final list:

“The following table is comprised of over 160 professions and more than 50 regulators that BEIS consider fall within this definition”—


the definition regulated by law—

“and is the product of engagement with other departments, regulators and external organisations. Please note that BEIS are still conducting assurance work to confirm the professions and regulators to which the Bill will apply … The list below should be considered indicative only.”

I think that was the appropriate health warning to put on that letter. A very detailed exercise has been going on across Whitehall to confirm who is covered by law, which, as I said earlier, one would have thought it would be straightforward to find out. A very detailed exercise has been going on to update that letter, which was indicative, and to make the letter I have now sent as accurate as possible—although even that letter may still need some updating around the margin going forward.

In order to achieve this list, we have had to work with a large number of government departments and the regulators. This thorough mapping of the landscape of regulated professions has not been done properly, I have written down here, “for far too long”. I wonder whether it has ever been done properly at all before now. Yet this list of regulators regulated by law was the list to which the European Union regulations applied. What has come to light, frankly, during this process, is that not all regulators have a copy of the list of the professions which they regulate. The list of professions attached to this list has come from the regulators and, quite rightly and properly, the GMC drew attention to the fact that some extra medical professions needed to be included in the list. Furthermore, not all departments had full visibility of which regulators that fell under their purview were covered by law.

I accept, without reservation, that it is not good enough that these lists have been incomplete and that noble Lords must have felt they were playing a game of blind man’s buff in trying to see who the Bill applies to. Of course, as a Minister on the Front Bench, it has been uncomfortable to sit here and listen to the quite reasonable points made by my noble friend Lady Noakes, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and others.

This list must be put into good shape. By the mere act of our working through this Bill and unearthing these matters—in the way that our House is here to do—we are doing a good job. The landscape is complex, but by the time we have finished the Bill, I believe we will have learned all there is to learn about regulated activities, and this rather technical matter about which regulators and professions are covered by law.

Since the first letter, there have been, as I have mentioned, some changes to the indicative list, with some more regulators coming on to it. We have now identified close to 60 regulators—I think it is 55 or 56 —and more than 190 professions as falling within the ambit of the Bill. I placed an updated list in the House of Lords Library yesterday. I thought noble Lords would congratulate me on working at the weekend on a Bill as important as this; I now have almost perfect knowledge of when noble Lords eat their lunch on a Sunday. I have asked my officials to keep the list under review as they continue their work with national authorities and regulators. Certainly, I would not want to be the Minister who took this Bill forward without knowing to whom it applied. I will, of course, inform noble Lords if further updates are made.

Actually, the vast majority of the professions and regulators contained in the indicative letter I shared on 20 June are the same as those I shared in the indicative letter of 23 May. As I said, we have done further work with departments to assess where existing legislation will mean that the Bill applies to certain professions and to determine the relevant regulators. This is detailed work that has drawn on expertise from many departments.

In answer to the point of my noble friend Lady McIntosh about animals—the virtual zoo to which she referred—whether or not an animal or a farmer falls under regulations that are governed by law is a matter for legislation that is owned by Defra, which at certain times in the past must have considered it appropriate to put an animal or an activity into its statutes. It is not something that I or my department have taken a value judgment on in relation to the list that should be included in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Again, I repeat that I am very happy to hold round tables on this, as necessary.

On the noble Lord’s particular point, if a new separate regulator was set up that fell within the definition of a corresponding regulator for the purposes of this Bill, Clause 9 would automatically apply to it and the information sharing would happen in that way.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am getting more confused; I am Confused of Wherever. When we set out on our journey on this Bill, the Minister was clear that this was about the mutual recognition of qualifications between different regulatory countries and repealing certain aspects as a result of Brexit. Since then, in the debate on a previous group, the Minister talked about recruiting people into skills, which was not in the initial remit, and now we seem to have strayed firmly into the territory of the internal market Act. Most of the people in this Chamber sat through the happy hours of the then internal market Bill, which was there to do the things that the Minister has just talked about. It seems to me that we are conflating lots of different objectives, the reason being that, once again, if you read the title of the Bill, it can be almost anything you want, and, because of the Henry VIII powers, you can do almost anything you want. Things keep changing. The furniture keeps getting moved. So can the Minister please reassert the focus of this Bill so that I can perhaps knuckle down under his iron will and we can get through it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, first, it was churlish of me not to thank my noble friend the Minister for his enthusiastic embracing of the idea of a round table in connection with Clause 9; for that I am extremely grateful to him. I am also grateful that he asked us again to refer to the Explanatory Memorandum in relation to Clause 13, in addition to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in moving this amendment. The EM states that the powers under Clause 13

“may be used to modify legislation, including, where relevant, Acts of Parliament.”

Again, an Act of Parliament is being amended not by another Act, but simply by regulation.

Every Government like to govern by regulation and every Opposition would prefer things to be on the face of the Bill—that is just a fact of life to which I am becoming accustomed, having only served as a shadow Minister, not the real thing. But I would like to take this opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister one specific question. Clause 13 as drafted is silent on any requirement to consult on these regulations. What consultation will there be, and at what stage might draft regulations be passed to the regulators as well as the relevant devolved Administrations? It is extremely important that they see them at the earliest possible stage.

Could my noble friend also put my mind at rest regarding an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to in connection with Clause 9: the potential conflict between regulators of a devolved nation and regulators in another devolved nation or, indeed, the “mothership”—the English regulator? Might that situation arise under Clause 13? How would my noble friend aim to prevent that arising?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am grateful for the speeches we have heard so far. I am a cosignatory to this amendment and I would like to associate myself completely with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Patel. However, if they will excuse me, I would like to single out the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, which were a clear, clarion call as to what we need to do with this clause: take it out. If we do not, we will let a Bill leave your Lordships’ House with so much power vested in the Minister and the department.

We are still struggling with what this Bill is for. If, as the Minister says, the first four clauses are its beating heart, then if things change, these issues can be picked up in primary legislation. Secretary of State Fox was very clear: trade deals will be brought to Parliament and debated as primary legislation. If and when the Government renege on that, perhaps it would be a problem of their own creating, but to leave this Henry VIII clause in the Bill is to pass too much untrammelled power going forward. I am sure that every department wants that ability not to have to worry about what Parliament says when it is making regulations and primary legislation, but your Lordships are here to stand up against things like that. We should remember the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, as we move forward to Report.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt referred to “unease” about the Bill. I would put it slightly stronger: the “worry” about the Bill is threefold. First, as we have been hearing, it is badly thought out, badly drafted and not subject to proper consultation. Secondly, it is powerful: it allows statutory bodies—ones we thought autonomous —to have their roles, structures and working practices altered, not at their request to a Minister but to comply with government policy. Thirdly, as we have just been hearing, these changes to statutory bodies will be imposed by secondary legislation.

Hence, it is entirely legitimate to ask questions about Clause 13. Again, it is about whether there are two parts to the Bill. I have been focused on the idea that the Bill is about recognising international qualifications, but we are hearing from the various trade talks that the Government will indeed want to add professional services into the mix. As we have said before, this will often be really welcome and will be prioritised, I hope, in some of the trade talks—but only where it is judged good for our professions and not where it is imposed in a deal for something else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Once again, my Lords, I find myself following the wise words of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Patel. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referenced the Trade Act. Students of the Trade Act will have heard me make a speech about secondary legislation on at least two occasions and I am not going to repeat it, but—spoiler alert—it was very similar to the speech the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, gave. The key element both of us brought out was the complete lack of government jeopardy when it comes to secondary legislation. In other words: it is essentially a bet that cannot be lost. What they are betting with is the right governance of a very important thing.

After several trailers from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we come to this amendment. He has trailed this several times and the sunset clause is one way of putting some insurance into this Bill. What we would really like is for the Bill to leave this House not needing a sunset clause; that has to be the objective. This is very much a second-order or third-order solution to something sub-optimal. In that respect, I am not enthusiastic; I am somewhat reluctantly drawn to supporting this clause because we have to put in some element of insurance if we cannot get this right. I hope that, by hook or by crook, we can get the Bill right and perhaps not need a sunset clause, but in the meantime, we should keep that option open.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for tabling Amendment 59. A four-year sunset clause is an interesting proposal, given the wider concerns that keep coming up throughout these debates: how quickly the Bill has been put together, the lack of thinking through of all the elements, and the concerns just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

Have the Government considered a mechanism for reviewing the Act’s effectiveness and, if so, what sort of review is the Minister proposing? I hope he will acknowledge the lack of confidence that has been expressed from all sides of this Chamber. I finish by asking the Minister to explain why the Bill’s provisions should last longer than four years, without a review mechanism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I have gone through the entire Committee session in complete agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Not a scintilla of difference has come between us all day. The fact that this amendment is signed by such a broad group of people indicates two things. One is that there is broad hope that we can get a Bill out of this process that we can live with. Also, this is the essential building block that has to start the process of creating a Bill that this House is much more comfortable with. As we have heard, the Minister has spoken time after time about the autonomy of the regulator. He cannot be faulted in the number of times he has said it. However, at no point is that autonomy echoed in the words of the Bill. That is what this amendment, very simply, seeks to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, put it, it is to take the Minister’s words and to put them into the Bill. Without that insurance, as my noble friend Lord Purvis explained, that are plenty of ways that autonomy can be eroded and, indeed, set to one side.

My noble friend Lady Randerson, speaking to a previous group, explained that mutual recognition of qualifications takes years. It does not take years if it rides in on the back of a free trade agreement and overrides the rights and autonomy of our regulators. That is the fear that runs through all the people trying to correct this Bill. This amendment, or something that the Government pick up and make their own, is one way of starting the process of having the dialogue that will help the Bill make further progress.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for her amendment, which sets out the autonomy of regulators to act in the interests of their profession. I note that the amendment is supported by my noble friend Lady Noakes and others. Of course, I commend their commitment to upholding regulator autonomy, and it will come as no surprise that I support their intent here. I was told before I joined your Lordships’ House that understanding the mood of the House was an important requisite if a Minister was to have a chance of even modest success in his role. I do not think that anybody who has listened to our debates on this matter could be in any doubt about the mood of the Committee on this topic.

I spoke at length on regulator autonomy on days one and two of Committee, saying, in particular, that regulatory autonomy is, and has always been, a priority in this Bill. Throughout the Bill’s development and following its introduction, the Government have engaged closely with a wide range of regulators—even the newly discovered ones—to make sure that their autonomy is upheld throughout the Bill. We will of course continue to do so, not just during the Bill’s passage but in its implementation. Subject to the usual channels, I believe that we may now have time available to us before the Bill moves to Report stage to make sure that process is fully and conclusively completed.

This is why of course we listened even before the Bill started its passage through the House, and tabled our amendments to Clause 1: to ensure, in that case, regulatory autonomy over decisions about who practises a profession and flexibility in assessment practices, in line with the rigorous standards set by regulators. I think noble Lords will recognise now that the overall effect of Clause 1, as amended, will be to ensure that regulators can use a full range of approaches to make their determinations about knowledge and skills, and it preserves their ability to set further conditions, such as those set out in the amendment. I am pleased that, through discussion, we were able to get both the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council to welcome this. The proposed new clause would also specify that regulators are able to determine whether to make a regulator recognition agreement. Perhaps I may humbly say that Clause 4 is already the means of achieving this.

Clause 3 ensures that, where the UK has international agreements on the recognition of professional qualifications, these can be implemented. The principle of autonomy will be a key priority in reaching these agreements. Of course, I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that there will be a number of future free trade agreements that will require primary legislation to implement them. Equally, there may be some, for example the Swiss mobility agreement—not a full free trade agreement but one that acts within the spirit of the Bill—which may not need primary legislation. That is why it has been important to have this flexibility.

Agreements under Clause 4 are entirely regulator-led. The appropriate national authority may grant regulators the power only to enter into agreements, not to dictate what agreements to enter into. It is for the regulator to decide whether it wishes to enter into a recognition agreement with its counterparts overseas, and the terms of any agreement. I hope that I have conveyed through this, and my previous comments, that the Bill protects and values the autonomy of regulators. But of course, I go back to my earlier comments: the strength of feeling expressed by Members of this House has not gone unheard. I have listened carefully to the points made and I will continue to consider the importance of regulatory autonomy and to ensure that this is respected.

I would still highlight that the Bill, as drafted and amended by the Government, does give powers to regulators where they need them. If the Bill can be improved through scrutiny, who would not want it to be? However, the Bill is already consistent with the intended effects of the amendment, so I suggest that there is no need for an additional clause. I therefore ask that this amendment be withdrawn.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

Debate on whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose Clause 3 standing part of the Bill. Judging from the range of people who have co-signed this amendment and those who would have signed it had there been space, this issue is not confined to one set of Benches. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for signing it. I also acknowledge the craft of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in drafting Amendment 56; I will obviously allow him to speak for himself, but it may well be another way of thinking about the clause. We have already heard about some of the issues in Clause 3, as your Lordships have sought to make amendments. Of course, we are in Henry VIII territory again, but there are particular concerns about this clause, which I will highlight.

The Minister told us at Second Reading:

“Clause 3 will enable UK Ministers and devolved Administrations to implement the recognition of professional qualifications elements of international agreements.”


He said:

“To be frank, we acknowledge that these powers are broad”.—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 910.]


Broad is a good word. In one of his many letters—for which I thank the Minister, as they arrived at five o’clock yesterday evening—he again confirms the importance of the autonomy of regulators, which he has returned to on many occasions.

However, this clause essentially gives the Government of the day the ability to make whatever provision is required to implement any international recognition agreement to which the UK becomes a party. It includes the power to amend primary legislation and retained EU legislation. If regulators were indeed autonomous, what exactly would this clause be implementing? To date, I am aware of no indications from the Minister or his department as to the nature of what changes might be necessary to implement such international agreements. Perhaps he can give us some examples but, in the meantime, we have to assume that nothing is off the table and that the autonomy of the regulators would not be protected in any way if this Bill were passed with this clause in it.

When I first read the Bill, I was already more than somewhat disquieted by this clause but when I read the Delegated Powers Committee report my fears were amplified. I cannot match its authority, but its damning condemnation of the scale of the powers in this clause are really quite important and should be taken into consideration. As the committee said:

“Implementation of such agreements in UK domestic law could raise matters of considerable public interest (for example, were such agreements to give preference to professional qualifications issued in particular countries—perhaps linked to trade deals).”


In the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the Minister confirms that the clause will ensure that the Government can meet their international commitments. Would I be right in assuming that this would include mobility frameworks in free trade agreements?

The DPRRC report goes on to highlight the lack of clarity in changes that secondary legislation would make in domestic law, or the scale of change this law might exert on the 160 or so professions in question by international regulation agreements that the committee implicitly linked to trade deals. It then explains that the justification for this delegation is the fact that the nature of future international agreements cannot be known, which we will come back to. Additionally, the DPRRC notes that the Government fail to try to explain why these

“‘necessary changes’ should …be made by Ministerial regulations rather than by Act of Parliament.”

I expect the Minister to respond to this debate by saying that this clause is vital to Her Majesty’s Government’s plans to implement international trade agreements. But this is true only if the Government refuse to bring these agreements to Parliament for approval. How does he justify the taking of power for the Minister and not leaving it to a future Act of Parliament? How does he respond to the DPRRC’s telling conclusion that

“clause 3 represents an inappropriate delegation of power and should be removed from the Bill”?

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Like him, I was moved to draft Amendment 56 not least by the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which at the end of its consideration of Clause 3 said that it

“represents an inappropriate delegation of power and should be removed from the Bill.”

The noble Lord was not proceeding entirely on his own initiative, and I entirely recognise where he is coming from.

I am coming from this as a Member of the International Agreements Committee. We are looking at many of the negotiations taking place between ourselves—now as an independent trading state—and other countries in creating international agreements. I do not personally see the world as divided into trade agreements and other agreements. We are increasingly entering into economic partnership agreements where, to be frank, the issue of services and the mobility of professionals should rightly play an increasing part in the economic partnerships that we forge with other countries. I want to see us enter into frameworks with other countries whereby our professionals can work there, and their professionals can work here. That will be, as trade often is, to the benefit of all parties.

On that basis, I considered whether this may be like the Trade Bill, in which we effectively gave Ministers the regulatory power to amend legislation and bring it in line with the continuity agreements we enter into. The conclusion I reached is that it is not like that; these are new agreements, not continuations of old ones. From our point of view, as a committee charged under CRaG with the scrutiny of new agreements, we are only too aware that this House has no capacity to block such a treaty, and no capacity to amend it.

Where secondary legislation is concerned, the House may have the power to stop statutory instruments, but in this territory, frankly, we would enter very difficult terrain. We would end up with our Government having signed an agreement with another country, intending to be bound by it under international law—indeed, it may have come into force—and, at that point, this House would have to consider its implementation in legislation. It seems to me, therefore, that the remedy of deleting Clause 3—and so requiring that every time Ministers want to implement an international recognition agreement in legislation, they have to do it in new primary legislation—is asking too much. As time goes on, there will clearly be framework international recognition agreements under which Ministers will regularly, or maybe frequently, need to change the secondary legislation affecting a range of professions and regulators.

My thinking was that we should—as we often do—allow Ministers the power to change the statutory instruments and secondary legislation relating to new international recognition agreements, but not the power to change primary legislation. That is why, instead of changing Clause 3 itself, Amendment 56 amends the regulation clause at the end, Clause 13, and would provide that the power in Clause 3 to implement international recognition agreements is a power to modify subordinate legislation but not primary legislation; that would be the effect of Amendment 56. Noble Lords may support the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others in opposing Clause 3, but—if they share my belief that we will often be in this this territory, with Ministers having to change secondary legislation and much less frequently primary legislation, and that, when they do, they should secure the consent of the House, with our ability, as ever, to insert amendments, conditions and caveats, as well as sunshine clauses and so on—then they should in due course consider an amendment on the lines of Amendment 56 to strike a better balance, giving Ministers power but not a Henry VIII power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very good debate—the Minister has clearly listened and responded strongly. We have certainly listened to his response.

First, I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who appears to have redefined the phrase “being bounced by the Government”. She was looking at me when she referred to door security, at which I take umbrage.

On the subject of letters—we already have more in the post—I point out that the timetable is the Government’s timetable. If it is short, it is clearly the Whips with whom the Minister needs to have a word rather than us suffering. I support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about making this available to all of us.

The notion that we all want to see people able to work in different territories as a result of this is absolutely true. The Minister will know that I have spent a great deal of my time proposing amendments to various Bills in order to put back mobility frameworks that were being removed in another way, so my support is there. What we have heard in this debate is a compelling argument about Clause 3. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, was right that this is the key clause of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked the right question: why is there a need for Clause 3? The Minister attempted to answer that and, in doing so, used the example of the EFTA agreement. In that agreement, as he said, it is agreed to have a route to recognition. This confirms the suspicion of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, whom I congratulate on making the only case for supporting the Government that we have heard so far—although even that contained some pretty hard questions, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer, probably in another letter.

The point is that the powers in Clause 3 are constrained by the wording of the FTA. We do not know what the next FTA or the FTA after that will say, but the only constraint comes from the words in that FTA. The powers in the clause are in effect unlimited, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out. That is the concern. Before we talk about Amendment 56 and the like, we must establish the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Trees: why do we need this clause. What is it that we need? Frankly, it is a nice-to-have power for this Government but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, it could very well become a nasty-to-have power in future when other people may take it and use it in different ways.

The Minister is right to identify that there is more work to be done. He reflected that it is an uphill task. Well, there is often more than one way to get to the summit. Straight up, rather than taking a more considered and circuitous path, may be the best way to get the elements of Clause 3 that the Minister considers essential there. At the moment, the sledgehammer of this clause, as we have seen, will not be acceptable.

Clause 3 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I have two brief points. I would like to speak in support of Clause 4 standing part of the Bill, but I welcome my noble friend explaining, in response to earlier amendments, that this will be regulator-led and is permissive, not prescriptive.

First, I am slightly concerned by subsection (1), as explained in paragraph 39 of the Explanatory Notes, which then go on to say that it seems quite prescriptive. I do not know if that takes away from the permissive nature of the rest of the clause.

Secondly—and, to be honest with my noble friend and the Committee, I could not think of where else to raise this—I accept that they are not regulated bodies, but I understand that the professional drivers and attendants of pig farmers, chicken producers and livestock transporters are covered by the remit of the Bill. It is interesting to see, but I cannot understand why beef and lamb producers are not covered, because it strikes me that they might like the opportunity to make common ground with countries with which we are seeking to do deals. It may be that they are allowed to do so, but if they are, I wonder why they are excluded from the remit of the Bill.

Finally, I assume that the costs will be minor. I would like to place on record the fact that most of the bodies that have contacted me welcome the powers set out in Clause 4. I do not know whether paragraph 66 on page 18 of the impact assessment is relevant here. That refers to frameworks but I presume that also covers regulator recognition agreements. It comes up with a figure, giving a mean of £350,000 as a best estimate. On what basis has that figure been reached?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for opposing that this clause stand part. The way in which he set out the issues around delegated powers was excellent. I have nothing to add, but I would like to associate myself with what he said. His point about the severity of the sanction of a DPRRC report is very well made. I have tried to make in different ways. I think we will all be waiting to see how the Government react in legislative terms.

The term “encouragement” has come up and, clearly, Clause 4 is the encouraging end of a continuum that goes through “recommendation” and ends up in “compulsion”. Here, I come back to the question that my noble friend Lord Purvis asked when we were debating Amendment 30. The Minister confirmed that Clause 4 is voluntary, which we were all grateful for, but omitted to respond to my noble friend’s question about whether Clause 3 has the power to override Clause 4 and move that encouragement further down the continuum towards compulsion. Rather than ask it that way around, let us ask it the other way around. Are there any circumstances in which Clause 3 can be used? In other words, would the Minister rule out that Clause 3 can ever be used to compel regulators to do things as a result of Clause 4?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government need to justify why this clause is in the Bill. What would happen if it were not? What would we lose? What is the worse that could happen if it were not in the Bill?

UK regulators are free to enter into negotiations with other national regulators at the moment, so why is this clause needed? Could the Minister just answer that, how it would be used and why we need to give Ministers this power? It does not use the words “encourage” or “encouragement”; it says that the Government can authorise a regulator to enter into negotiations, but it is hard to understand when that would ever be needed. Can the Minister answer the question: what would happen if this were not there and why, if a regulator did not do it of its own free will, the Government would need this power to authorise it to do it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

As always, I will consider carefully the suggestions made by the noble Baroness but, without wanting to repeat myself, I really do not understand this antipathy to giving power to those regulators that do not have this power.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I assure the Minister that I have managed to work out that if two things are standing next to each other I can feel differently about one from the other. Everything that I have said has recognised the benign nature of Clause 4, but what I asked and did not hear an explicit answer to was whether that benign nature could be modified by the very close Clause 3—and never mind how close it is; it could be anywhere in the Bill. The Minister did not answer that question, and because of that I assume that I and my noble friend Lord Purvis, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others, are correct that Clause 3 can modify Clause 4, and benign, beneficial and voluntary elements of Clause 4 can be made compulsory by Clause 3. Unless the Minister is prepared to say that that is not and can never be the case, I am afraid I will leave this Chamber clear that what I have just said is correct.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

The noble Lord’s colleague the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, cautioned me on the previous day of Committee never to use “never” at the Dispatch Box, and I am trying to remember his strictures on that. The reason I did not answer the question directly is that I am not going to do so unless I am completely sure of my facts on this. I do not believe that it is possible for Clause 3 to creep its way into Clause 4 but, so that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Fox, a completely definitive answer, I will write to him, and I will copy that letter to all other noble Lords. Indeed, I will hand deliver it to noble Lords who wish to get it particularly expeditiously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a short but important debate. I expect the Minister to stand up and say that EEA professionals whose qualifications were recognised before the end of the transition period will continue to be recognised, but I warn him—again, in the spirit of helpfulness—to be careful what he promises because there is a problem: how do we know who has qualifications?

For the 5 million-plus EU nationals who have applied for settled status, the Home Office has only been checking the box that says “settled status”. It has not been verifying all withdrawal agreement rights, including professional qualifications. If these people remain in the job they are in now, so be it, but in the event that they move to another job with a new employer, I do not know how the process of them verifying their professional qualifications will happen. When the Minister answers this question, he needs also to answer the question of how this process will be effected for the millions of people, potentially, who came through the mutual recognition process, meaning that their names may not have been—indeed, probably were not—gathered with all the regulating bodies. How will it be managed? As previous speakers have emphasised, the role that these people already play in the United Kingdom is not just important but vital. It is also vital that the Government understand that these people’s qualifications need to work not just for their current job but for their next job and the one after that.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank everyone for their contributions in this really important area. I join noble Lords in raising concerns about the impact of the Bill on the qualifications of those who already live and work in the UK.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Hunt, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for signing my Amendment 60. Their expertise, especially in the medical and legal professions, has been incredibly helpful for this debate and for my first amendment to a Bill in this House. I could not be more appreciative of such cross-party support. I share the intention behind Amendment 37 and thank the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling it.

It is absolutely clear from the debate that we need to give those who already have their professional qualifications recognised in the UK certainty and confidence that this legislation will not affect them negatively, especially because, in many cases, the professionals and people working in these areas already live in our communities, have decided to call the UK their home and are people on whom all of us so often rely, particularly for our vital public services. This is especially true in the context of shortages, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, set out, picking up on the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fraser and Lady Finlay, about the whiff of doubt that exists at the moment.

We cannot repeat this frequently enough: last year, the number of non-British people here included 169,000 NHS staff in England, 122,000 staff on the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s register and 247,000 staff in social care. We are hugely grateful to all these key workers—especially for their efforts during the pandemic. As I said at Second Reading, we cannot clap for carers today then strip them of their qualifications tomorrow. We need to stand behind all these workers and want to do so side by side with Ministers.

In the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the Government’s central promise was that

“nothing in the Bill prevents, qualifies or otherwise impacts the ability of those with existing recognised qualifications from continuing their areas of practice in the UK”,

but the Bill as drafted is currently silent on this. Therefore, Amendment 60 would write the Government’s own promise into the Bill. Surely the Minister will have no objection to accepting this simple but extremely important amendment. How can he guarantee protection of workers without it?

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for pointing out in conversation that many who have registration are not currently practising, and there needs to be reassurance for them as well. We have the opportunity to provide the certainty and confidence that all so richly deserve. Let us do what we can to provide the atmosphere of trust that we have mentioned today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

I have received requests to speak from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox, first.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his partial answer to my point, but he will find if he goes back to the department that proof of recognition will have to be re-presented if people are moving jobs. If that is not the case, I will be happy to accept it and we can have one of his famous letters on the subject. My understanding is that this is not his department’s doing but part of the hostile environment that the Home Office still pursues; the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made the point about the hangover from previous incidents. My understanding is clear on this, so I would be pleased if the Minister is able to disabuse me of it.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, to add to that, I listened carefully to the Minister when he spoke about the person holding the qualification, but my concern relates to the qualification itself. If somebody holds a qualification that was mutually recognised in the EU, has not yet come to this country but wishes to in five years’ time, will that qualification remain recognised as it would have previously or is there a possibility of additional hurdles being put in place for that person coming in? I go back to the term “grandfathering” and whether the recognition that existed will continue, or whether it continues only up to date for those people who are currently on a register in this country and possibly have settled status. That was not clear, or perhaps I did not understand it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, there have been a number of interesting debates today, and this is an important one. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the assistance centre to give information about visa and work permit requirements. In a previous debate, the noble Lord the Minister—the noble Baroness the Minister is answering this debate—told us that the assistance centre is up and running. Clause 7 provides for the assistance centre, which is there to facilitate transparency on the recognition and regulation of professional qualifications in the United Kingdom, to provide advice and assistance to UK qualified professionals who want their publications and experience to be recognised overseas, and to publish certain advice and information.

I agree with the Law Society of Scotland, which drafted this amendment for me, that it would be important for the assessment centre also to provide advice and information about visa and work permit requirements for entry to the UK for employment and other related purposes. At present, the UK Centre for Professional Qualifications—UK CPQ—which is managed by Ecctis, provides advice and information across the UK on recognition of professional qualifications in an international context in the UK and abroad. Clause 7 provides the statutory basis for that service.

The UK CPQ does not provide advice or information about visa and work permit requirements for entry to the UK; nor does it signpost to relevant advice and information on immigration matters. There is another body, the UK national agency for international qualifications and skills—UK ENIC—which is also managed by Ecctis. Visitors to its website, who wish to see information about visa and nationality matters, are directed to the Home Office. I do not need to tell the Committee that that is not the most helpful advice to give to anyone. That there is a choice of bodies with similar names operating in the same sphere and run by the same entity must be confusing to an individual from abroad who wants to have their qualification recognised but also to obtain the basis for employment in the UK; namely, a visa or work permit.

I agree with the Law Society of Scotland’s view that it would be much better and more cohesive were the assistance centre more of a one-stop shop, in respect of the benefits of offering a joined-up service to nationals of other countries seeking to requalify and potentially establish themselves in the UK. This amendment will help achieve that. I agree with the Law Society’s view that the Long Title of the Bill is broad enough to bring such functions within the ambit of the assistance centre. Perhaps between now and Report, the Minister—who I know is a very helpful Minister—could make inquiries about whether such a provision could be included in amendments later in the Bill’s passage. In the meantime, by making this point, I hope that the Government will agree that there would be practical and reputational benefits of offering comprehensive advice and assistance to international colleagues.

That deals with Amendment 39. Amendments 44 and 50 are also in my name. I will not press them, because we dealt with the same principle on a previous amendment. Members who were there will recall that I passed on the responsibility to my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who sadly cannot be with us today. What he explained then applies to this amendment equally well. The points made by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, were helpful, particularly the Minister’s assurance that the regulator is not required to make the disclosure if that would contravene the data protection legislation. It was very helpful to have that clarified. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I put on record our thanks to the Minister. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my near namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and endorse his words. This group contains a number of different amendments. I will focus on Amendment 43 in my name, but that does not indicate that I do not support elements of the others.

I have done what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, advises against, which is to table an amendment to one element of this clause in order to speak to a larger confusion that I have. This is a probing amendment, but the real point is: what is this centre for and why will it operate as it does? We have established a few facts at Second Reading and through previous amendments, so we know that the Government foresee one overarching centre rather than four national ones, and to do this, the Minister has painted a picture of two people and a website—a landing page. Forgive me, but this is a website requiring 48 lines of primary legislation, so it must have some importance in the mind of the Government to go to this much trouble when it replaces what was a sentence in an EU directive, which is the previous assistance centre. So much for red tape. We have 48 lines of primary legislation to establish a website run by two people.

My amendment leaves out Clause 7(4), which deals with disclosing information. Clearly, it reinforces that certain information cannot be disclosed, but to whom will this information be disclosed? It paints a picture of the collection and dispersing of individuals’ data, so what is the point? Why is it there? What data is it—whose stuff? I do not understand what it is for. I understood that it was to point people in certain directions. This is saying that it is a requirement to disperse data, but what data, and to whom? That is the central reason why I have put my name to this amendment. Of course, if it is collecting important data, it would be nice to know that it is doing so properly, so the terms of this subsection are of course correct, but we need to know why this centre is being set up as it is and what on earth it is for.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I have two very small amendments in this group, both taking us back to my unfavourite word, “substantially”. When we were discussing this last week, my main objection was that “substantially” always implies that something is missing. Last week it was applied to standards, and my argument then was that you cannot water down standards so should not use “substantially”. With these two amendments, my argument is that the word is completely unnecessary. In “substantially corresponds to”, “substantially” is a modifier and “corresponds to” is a modifier; you do not need them both, so I simply put this forward to ask if we can please neaten up the Bill by two words and take out “substantially” in both contexts.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response. I am having trouble matching the words that she is using with the thing that she is describing. That is my problem. The words “a website run by two people” and “assistance centre” are not really the same, so are we talking about an assistance centre or a landing page? When I talked about a landing page the other Minister kind of nodded. It would help if the Government would clear up what this thing actually is and, in so doing, tell us how much they think it will cost.

The specific question I have is about data. The Minister seemed to suggest that in order for this centre/website to conform to existing data protection regulation it needed guidance in primary legislation. Is that because it will be asked to do more data protection, less data protection or the same amount? If it is the same amount of data protection, why does it need primary legislation to tell it what to do?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Providing a statutory basis for the continued existence of an assistance centre places a duty on competent authorities to co-operate with it. This is to ensure that the assistance centre has the necessary information to help support the delivery of its functions, rather than relying on voluntary information-sharing arrangements. In a practical sense, it provides a signposting system through its website. It also has a telephone answering service, which dealt with my question this morning about the need for English language skills for particular professions. It answered the question very carefully and properly by saying that that was not part of its remit and I needed to talk to the visa requirements section. The centre is at least directing you to where you need to go for your questions to be answered.

The legislation also requires that the assistance centre provides information to the Secretary of State when requested. As I said, this is not onerous information, but it is an important requirement, as the Secretary of State has a responsibility for the wider recognition of professional qualifications principles. Lastly, its existence in legislation helps validate the credibility of the assistance centre for engagement with its overseas counterparts.

Employment Rights

Lord Fox Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, workers face a real crisis of insecurity and a lack of protections, but the proposals announced in this Statement will do little to turn around the record of inaction from the Government. Whether it is dropping the employment Bill, allowing 2 million people to be paid below the minimum wage or indeed leaving the post of Director of Labour Market Enforcement vacant for months, the Government’s rhetoric on workers’ rights simply fails to match reality. We see this again today.

There is no plan for when the legislation for the single enforcement body will come to Parliament, despite three-quarters of respondents in the consultation stating that the current enforcement system is ineffective. As the Government said that the new body will

“significantly improve the Government’s ability to protect vulnerable workers and ensure they receive their employment rights”,

can the Minister confirm that the Bill is a priority and will at least be published this year?

There is no new money to merge three existing bodies into a single organisation with a significantly expanded remit. The consultation response states that the current funding will be “used more effectively”, but more funding for its new responsibilities, such as

“enforcement of holiday pay for vulnerable workers”,

is yet to be considered. So can the Minister explain how effective the body will be across all its responsibilities without additional support?

The most glaring omission in this plan is that many of the most exploitative employment practices will remain perfectly legal. Bogus self-employment denies millions of workers in the gig economy basic protections and rights. On fire and rehire, the Minister said:

“This Government have always been clear that we do not accept fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic.”


But the weak promise of further guidance only kicks the can further down the road.

Almost three million people—one in 10—have been subjected to fire and rehire since last March. This will not stop until this morally wrong and economically illiterate practice is outlawed. So will the Minister commit to giving workers full employment rights to ensure that everybody has dignity and security at work?

The Statement also reconfirms that the Government are determined to hobble trade unions, which are the best mechanism for protecting workers’ rights. The proposal to give the certification officer powers to commission investigations and fine trade unions even when there has been no complaint from a member—funded by a levy on trade unions—is an attack on working people and seeks to solve a problem that simply does not exist. Why are the Government not following President Biden’s proposals—he is here in the country—to empower trade unions to rejuvenate the American economy and raise living standards? If Ministers really want to do whatever they can to protect and enhance workers’ rights, they need to stop overpromising and start delivering for working people.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. This is a relatively small, long-overdue step towards upholding workers’ rights, and to that extent it is welcome. However, it comes with no parliamentary time allocated for legislation and no new funding.

There was a glaring hole in the Queen’s Speech. After a pandemic that has made life extremely hard for many people, it is disappointing that the Government are yet to announce an employment Bill to strengthen workers’ rights and to make the rules fit for modern working practice.

A single enforcement agency is welcome but, unless we look again at people’s working conditions and the rules in place, this agency—when it eventually emerges—will not be able to deliver the change that people need in their lives. To do that, it needs proper funding. For example, the International Labour Organization recommends that Governments have one inspector per 10,000 workers. In the UK the current funding is for 0.4, so can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House if and when the new agency will be funded to deliver ILO levels of inspection?

When an illusionist is practising their art, the key skill is misdirection. In this case, our attention is in danger of being distracted by decent and welcome words condemning the practice of fire and rehire. Meanwhile, the Government have conflated employment abuses with measures to crack down on trade unions. While there may be some issues in a small number of unions, they are not the cause of the problems faced by so many families. It is sharp employment practice that is taking UK families to the edge, not trade unions, so my next question to the Minister is: how do the Parliamentary Under-Secretary’s words in this Statement help people who right now are being fired and taken back on downgraded working contracts? This Statement condemns the practice, but now the Government have asked for a further report on the subject. This is kicking it into the long grass. When will the Government actually do something to help workers?

More broadly, in October 2016 the Government commissioned Matthew Taylor to carry out an independent review of the UK employment framework. The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices found that the labour market was changing due to the emergence of new business models and different forms of gig economy working; the Minister knows about this very well. It proposed many important measures to help support people’s jobs in those sectors. These measures received a broad welcome, and indeed warm words flowed from the Benches opposite. In their last manifesto, the Conservatives undertook to implement many of the report’s findings—yet it still gathers dust. Mr Taylor became interim Director of Labour Market Enforcement in August 2019, but then in January this year he announced that he was leaving and the role was not refilled. So have the Government abandoned their pledge to implement the Taylor review?

With or without Taylor, things need to change—and quickly. When will we see an end to the toxic practice of delivery workers being required to drive illegally so that they can meet their quotas? When will we see an end to people being forced to skip bathroom breaks? When will nearly two in five workers get more than a week’s notice of their working hours? When will gig economy workers get the wages they deserve—for example, the 20% higher minimum wage for people on zero-hours contracts? Because this is the real world of work that is facing many people right now.

Speaking in the Commons, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said:

“Nothing is off the table.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/21; col. 849.]


Actually, for the poorest, most exploited workers there is nothing on the table. These are words. When will we see some action?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Fox, for their comments. To pick up the final question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the Taylor review and workers’ rights, we have made good progress in bringing forward legislation to protect workers’ rights. We have closed the loophole that sees agency workers employed on cheaper rates than permanent workers, we have quadrupled the maximum fine for employers who treat their workers badly and we have given all workers the right to receive a statement of their rights from day one.

We are committed to protecting and enhancing workers’ rights. The noble Lord pointed to the Uber Supreme Court judgment. It was clear that those who qualify as workers under existing employment law are entitled to rights such as the minimum wage, and all gig economy businesses should ensure that they are fulfilling their legal responsibilities.

On the employment Bill, which both noble Lords asked me about, I can tell them, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, who said that the Bill had been dropped, that he is not correct. We are committed to bringing forward an employment Bill to protect and enhance workers’ rights as we build back better. We want a high-productivity, high-wage economy that delivers on our ambition, and we want to see workers protected.

With regard to firing and rehiring, the Government have set out a clear and proportionate course of action to address fire and rehire. It is a complex area of law so we have asked ACAS to produce better, more comprehensive and clearer guidance to help employers explore all the options before considering fire and rehire and to encourage good employment relations practice. We are looking closely at the ACAS report. While we are not legislating at this stage, we will continue to monitor the evidence on the use and prevalence of fire and rehire.

Both noble Lords asked me about the funding for the single enforcement body. As with all government funding, that will be considered during the spending review later this year. On the questions about the Certification Officer, it is important to point out that the principle of this in the legislation was passed and agreed in the Trade Union Act 2016. This is merely the enactment of those provisions, and it does no more than give powers to the Certification Officer similar to those that many other regulators already possess in these sorts of areas.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th June 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose of this Act
(1) The purpose of this Act is to give regulators the necessary powers to ensure demand for professions can be met in the United Kingdom.(2) Nothing in this Act affects the independent process of defining the accreditation processes of the regulators.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment underpins the principle that the process of defining the accreditation processes rests with the regulators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment, I should emphasise to the Minister, is offered very much in the spirit of helpfulness. At Second Reading, the Minister said:

“The Bill will allow action to be taken in the public interest if it is judged that a shortage of professionals has arisen in a profession, but that action in no way restricts regulators’ ability to take decisions about individual applicants; it merely requires them to set up a route through which people can seek entry to a profession.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 971.]


In other parts of his speech, the Minister reiterated the view that it was not the Government’s intention to interfere with regulators’ roles and responsibilities. Yet he also said:

“I emphasise that we want this new framework for recognition of professional qualifications to complement regulators’ existing practices.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 909.]


It is because of the need to clarify how the Bill complements the regulators that I am putting forward this amendment with the support of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed.

This Bill is backed up by secondary legislation that we have yet to see and which will define the true nature of this Bill. There are genuine concerns that the Bill creates potential for central government to intervene in a manner that cuts across the Minister’s assurances. This amendment seeks to clarify and delineate the purpose of this Bill. It does no more than the Minister has repeated in meetings and on the Floor of the House.

I make no apology for repeating that the overwhelming proportion of the reach of this Bill is yet to be seen. All we have is the skeleton. We know from the Minister that we should expect a deluge of secondary legislation, and it is in that where we will see reflected the true purpose of the Bill. I would add that, unfortunately, level of scrutiny of such secondary legislation sometimes falls below the level of the scrutiny by your Lordships of primary legislation, which is another danger.

Why should we be suspicious and, indeed, are those suspicions restricted just to these Benches? For the first time, but not the last, I refer your Lordships to the report of the DPRRC, published on 27 May, which addressed this Bill. In that report, the issue is clear. At the outset, the committee categorises Clause 1 as

“a Henry VIII power, as it includes power to amend primary legislation and retained direct principal EU legislation”

and goes on to say:

“The power can be used to make provision about a wide range of matters relating to applications to practise a profession, including ‘detail on the approach to be taken in assessing … qualifications’, requirements for regulators to have regard to guidance when determining applications to practise, the information to be included in such applications, fees to be paid and appeals.”


We have yet to see this potentially very far-reaching legislation. This takes this Bill to a place that is somewhat beyond what the Minister has outlined its role to be. Of course, those Henry VIII powers are qualified, but the scope of those qualifications is broad and will be discussed later.

As well as the mutability of Clause 1, the nature of Clause 3 has confirmed the need for this amendment. I was grateful that the Minister met me and colleagues this week. During that discussion, he confirmed that in relation to the purpose of the Bill, Clause 3 is explicitly needed in order to implement trade agreements where mutual recognition of qualifications is included. In fact, the Minister considers it vital for the Government to use this clause to make sure that the regulatory authorities enact the terms of a future free trade agreement. Of course, it is not needed for that. The Government could bring each trade deal to Parliament for approval, which would be a way of getting primary approval of such clauses within a free trade agreement. In that case, Clause 3 would not be required, and we can have that debate later. This is all about the creeping remit of the Bill, which is why I refer to it in this amendment.

The amendment clearly upholds the aim of giving all regulators the powers to regulate international professionals. Importantly, it also underpins the independence of the regulators—independence that the Minister so obviously treasures, but which this Bill, as drafted, so obviously threatens. In the Minister’s own words at Second Reading,

“the regulators are the experts in their respective fields and they ensure that high professional standards are maintained. Regulators must continue to have the ability to act in the public interest, including in the best interests of their professions and the consumers of professional services.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 971.]

We say prove that by accepting Amendment 1 and putting it in the Bill. I expect the Minister to say that he agrees with the text, but disagrees with putting it in the Bill. If indeed that is the Minister’s response, I would appreciate him explaining why he disagrees with putting it in the Bill. What is wrong with putting it in if that is the purpose of this Bill?

This is a skeleton Bill—another skeleton Bill—and this amendment tries to make clearer what this Bill is for, explicitly guiding what the Bill will do when the body of secondary legislation is added. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I did not believe that my comments on this group would assuage the noble Lord’s fears, but I am sure that as we progress through the Bill my comments on this matter in later clauses will do so.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has already been a more interesting debate than I had anticipated. The response of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on the subject of such clauses was not unexpected, but I emphasise that—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, noted—this is a twin-track approach.

We would like at the end of this to have a Bill such that, in the Minister’s words, we all exit the Chamber assuaged. In the event that we do not, however, something along these lines is needed as a safeguard. I am not parti pris about the wording on this—I will take full advantage of the wisdom of others in the Committee, not least that of the Minister himself, if his department chose to engage to offer reassurance. He admits that such a clause would offer reassurance, and then says that the Government do not want to offer reassurance. The opposite of reassurance is something that I would not have thought the Government wanted to be spreading around, but clearly I am wrong.

On the chances of our being assuaged, there are two clear problems. First, while there has been some engagement with the medical profession, we have already had accountants, dentists and lawyers paraded as professions that have issues. I suspect that if there were experts in your Lordships’ House on many of the other professions, they too would express problems. So, while there has been consultation, it seems to me that more of that could be done.

That takes us to the other point, which is the back-of-the-envelope comment that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made. I knew what my noble friend Lord Purvis was going to say, and I was still shocked when I heard him say it. There has been no reference by Her Majesty’s Government to this parallel exercise, and there would have been no reference to it had the diligence of my noble colleague not come to bear. It seems unthinkable that Her Majesty’s Government would bring a Bill such as this—a complex Bill, in the words of the Minister—without acknowledging a parallel exercise that is going on. The Minister does not seem to be prepared to answer the direct questions, but perhaps he could tell your Lordships’ House if Her Majesty’s Government are aware of any other parallel exercises going on in other departments at the moment. It would be helpful if they were all brought to light at this point rather than surfacing later.

It seems that assuaging us is going to take an awful lot of application from the Front Bench opposite. That said, we will wait and see how the debate goes today and on other days. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I support the Government’s amendments in this group and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. Initially, I thought that his amendment was attached to the word “only”, which is often misused in the English language—most often as an inappropriate or misplaced modifier. Initially I thought my noble friend was going to say that it was a misplaced modifier. However, I listened to what he said, and he raised a very substantive concern about the drafting of the clause. Like other noble Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree to take this away and look at it and, if necessary, bring an amendment back on Report to make proper sense of his new amendments.

Of course, there is a slight problem: once we have amended a Bill, we are not supposed to go back and amend it again at later stages. However, I think that if my noble friend were clear enough from the Dispatch Box today that he will look at this, it would not cause a problem.

My noble friend Lord Lansley may well have noted that, in our Conservative notes on the amendments that we are considering today, his Amendment 11 was described as an opposition amendment. I know that my noble friend has not always toed the party line—he is not alone in that—but I have never regarded him as the Opposition. I share this with the Committee in the hope that it will improve my noble friend’s street cred.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating the Minister on moving quickly on this. I also congratulate the GMC and the Nursing and Midwifery Council on moving quickly in terms of raising this issue with Her Majesty’s Government. Reflecting back on some of the things we heard in the debate on the first group of amendments, it seems that there are other professional groups in regulated professions that still have outstanding issues. I hope that the Minister can confirm that his door is just as widely open for them to bring their issues forward, albeit somewhat later, so that we can clear them up.

The Minister talked about whether we were assuaged and then stated that the Secretary of State for Health could bring forward statutory instruments concerning the health profession. We knew that. What we do not know, and what has not yet been answered, is how conditions set and laws made by this Bill that reflect on the consultation—as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, set out frankly, this Bill and the DHSC consultation are travelling in highly contradictory directions—will affect the consultation and the health professions. It is that direction that we are more interested in, rather than the opposite.

I associate myself with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Garden of Frognal. These amendments are welcome. I note that, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, we expect to debate the word “substantially” later because we have some concerns around that. I also note her point about future regulators, so to speak. My assumption is that those regulators will be established by a different process somewhere else but, in order to add those additional regulators to this Bill, we will be seeing some more of the Minister’s statutory instruments in future. Perhaps the Minister can be clear about how future new regulators will be added to the terms of this Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, does not regard the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as the Opposition, and I kind of do not, either. In this respect, I think the Minister would do well to listen to his very wise advice.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, as has been said, the changes made are welcome. However, we should reflect that there are still concerns over the powers. On 7 June, the Delegated Powers Committee produced a report on the changes. It said that the Government had still failed

“to explain what such ‘additional requirements’ or ‘conditions’ might be”

and—this is the important bit—had failed

“to explain why the amendment would leave it to Ministers to determine … whether there are to be any such conditions and, if so, what those conditions are to be.”

The committee also said that the Government had failed

“to explain why all such conditions should be a matter for secondary legislation”

rather than primary legislation—a theme to which we will continue to return.

As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, the GMC welcomes the changes but has asked for a couple of things to be put on the record by the Minister today. For example, can the decision on whether a particular professional is able to join a register be based on an assessment of that individual’s knowledge, skills and experience, rather than on just their qualification? Also, will the regulators make that assessment? As the noble Lord said, the GMC has asked for that, but I must say, as a potential patient, that I too would like an absolute assurance that it will be the regulator who says that someone is fit to start cutting me open, or whatever else anyone would do.

On the little secret we heard about in the briefing from the other side of the House, perhaps the mistake next time could be calling my amendment a government amendment, because that way we might be able to get it through without anyone noticing. I live in hope.

The issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is a good one. I also wonder whether the Bill needs an “and/or”. That seems to go to the strength of putting this amendment to one side and putting it in on Report. The Minister should not think that there is any egg on his face or anything if we ask for a pause. As I am sure he will know, it is very normal for government amendments to be put in on Report; otherwise, they have to be brought back, slightly clunkily, at Third Reading, by which time we are normally rather tired and want to leave early. So if the noble Lord could not push his amendment today so that we can deal with it on Report, that might be the best way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister, who has used words to set out why the Government want to put “substantially” in there but in no sense explained it. Again, the Minister stated the importance of regulatory autonomy for the regulators, which of course is why I proposed Amendment 1—to put it at the very beginning of the Bill, rather than in words such as “substantially”, which mean several things to different people, in the body of the legislation. I have one specific question. Can the Minister tell us what the legal judgment is on including “substantially” and opening up regulators to legal challenge? In other words, if the law says “substantially”, who determines that, and is there legal recourse for an individual who has been turned down by a regulator to use that word to make a legal case? If the Minister does not have that legal writing to hand, perhaps he could furnish it before the next day in Committee.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for that point. Much as noble Lords know, I love giving my opinion on everything, but I hope it might be safer if I write to him about that legal point afterwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am delighted to support many of the amendments in this group. Those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, are very similar to those in my name. I notice that Amendment 38 extends the proposed consultation to Clause 6. I will limit my remarks to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has cleverly married the concept of consultation with specifying the number of bodies that are to be consulted upon. When she comes to move Amendment 27, I would be interested to learn why she picked those specific ones. I am also interested to learn from the Minister why there is no reference in the Bill to any specific professional bodies. What was the thinking behind that?

On Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, obviously, a number of professional people co-operate together in partnership, but many may consider them a small firm, if you like. I see some merit to Amendment 52 in relation to what the Bill’s impact will be on small and medium-sized companies. I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response to that request.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this group is perhaps the inevitable consequence of trying to reduce a highly complex system and situation, as the Minister has highlighted, into a small one-size-fits-all Bill. In other words, we have a mixed bag of amendments in this group. I will speak initially to Amendments 53 and 54 in my name and to Amendment 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his support of Amendment 53. He said that he was disappointed to be speaking before me. I have to say that I am not disappointed to be speaking after him because he gave a much better speech than I could possibly have managed myself. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right, in that the innovation issue is hard to measure, but I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that this is part of a cumulative effect on innovation is important.

I was hoping to probe the Minister on how the Government have joined the dots between the intention of the Bill and how it will drive the future nature of our economy. To some extent, the criticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, of these kinds of amendments as a way of trying to shoehorn in something else is true; I make no apology for that.

At the heart of the Bill, there is a central conceit. At Second Reading, the Minister said:

“The Bill will allow action to be taken in the public interest if it is judged that a shortage of professionals has arisen in a profession.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 908.]


What is a “shortage of professionals”, and what level of omniscience is required from the department in order to identify that particular need in the market for professionals?

Is there a danger that the Bill is in fact solving yesterday’s problems? That is the innovation question—because we need people to create the businesses of the future. Yet we have a Home Office that lets in only people who already have a job, and BEIS, which will measure the current need for people. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, was closer to the mark when he talked about early career researchers—I would add research technicians. Both find it extremely difficult to get Home Office visas because they are paid less than the limit for them to come in.

We are going to have a debate about the availability of people, in the group starting with Amendment 17, and I do not want to pre-empt that, but I want to hear the Minister’s playback on how the department and those drawing up the Bill drew the dots between the Bill and innovation. That is one of my objectives with this amendment.

Amendment 54 looks at a different kind of impact. In fact, in retrospect it should have been grouped with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, Amendment 9, because in a sense it measures the effect that she has highlighted there. As happenstance will have it, she did not get an answer to her questions the first time around, so this gives us a chance to run through them again.

Minister, there is a strong belief that the regulators will come under great influence from the Government on the level of fees. That will either reduce their income or maintain their income at the expense of those registering. This amendment seeks to give transparency to that problem. If indeed it is not a problem, we will see that clearly. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, gave it something of a thumbs-up, in that it is measurable—and I assume that it is data that BEIS is already collecting because, of course, it is going to create a model of the entire professional market in order to manage it on behalf of the national economy. I assume that the data is already available. Therefore, publishing it would be very helpful and perhaps give a lie to the fears or expose them, so that the Government can change things to stop them becoming an issue.

Very simply, the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about some joined-up reporting is well made. Whether it is the whole hog or just a few key elements—and I would probably prefer the latter to the former—I think that the global south issue can be solved by having a geographic split on where people are coming from, for example, to highlight those issues.

My noble friend Lord Palmer spoke on Amendment 52 about the need for there to be a realisation within organisations of the impact of the Bill, particularly on SMEs. In the past, many SMEs have picked up employees from the European Union without having to give a moment’s thought to the accreditation of their skills. That is now changing, and I absolutely agree with my noble friend that there has been no dawning on the vast majority of Britain’s businesses of that change. I think he has a great point.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, spoke strongly, as usual. I agree with him—I would like the opportunity to intervene and interrupt the noble Lord, although of course I would exercise it with great care. But in the main, I would like the Minister to push back on Amendments 53 and 54 and say how this affects innovation and whether we can see the numbers when it comes to costs and the financial effect on the regulators.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I start by saying that I may have misheard what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said. I think she was asking about Amendment 27, which is in the next group.

I will speak to Amendments 19 and 29 in my name, but also thoroughly endorse all the pleas that we have heard for a very thorough—and, indeed, statutory—requirement on consultations with all the relevant parties. The impact of this will be felt; it could be felt on professionals and on service providers or users of those services. This is not a technical thing, so it is important that the consultation takes place.

Amendment 19 simply specifies that it is crucial that consumers are consulted. Consumers may be users, patients, clients—in the case of lawyers—or customers. When I was involved with the regulation and standard setting for actuaries, which I guess comes under the FRC in this, noble Lords will not be surprised that I chaired the user committee and was on the board. We had pension administrators, pension trustees and other people who used actuarial services, so that we were able to get their input as we were setting standards for actuaries.

The word “consumer” is a broad one and it is always difficult to say what it means, but it seems to me that if one were setting standards or one wanted more actuaries in the country, and the same could be true of other regulated areas, talking to the people who use those services would be highly appropriate. So, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says about the use of that word, it seems to me that the people who use the services of the professions covered in the Bill really should be consulted if there is going to be a different way of recognising and approving people to carry out that profession.

As I said earlier, regulation was always set up to protect the consumers or end-users, however they are defined, and therefore, in changing the procedure of how a regulator works in accepting professionals, it should be automatic that users of those services that the regulator was set up to protect should be involved. It certainly should not be just between the Government and the service provider—in other words, the professionals involved—because those affected by the decisions should surely not be excluded. Government always needs reminding that the end-user is what regulation is all about. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his support on this. It ought to be automatic; we should not have to think about putting it in a Bill, but so often it does not happen.

I was reading earlier in one of the government documents—sorry, I have had lots of letters from the Minister—about the call for comments in a consultation that was put on the BEIS website, I think. I have to say that most people would not think that a call for consultation on the regulation of professional qualifications would affect them as, say, a pension trustee, not realising that it will affect the professionals that they depend on in decisions they take, whether it is about pension holidays or, more likely, making up for deficiencies in a pension. One has to be on the front foot and go out looking for the input of users or consumers of professional services; they will not automatically happen to be watching the BEIS website to see that there is a consultation taking place.

Amendment 29 may be slightly cheeky, but it is really a nudge to the Government. It says that a regulator set up either to create or to maintain standards in the interest of consumers or users really ought to have those end-users or consumers on its board, its council or its executive. Therefore, when we are talking about regulators, we should require them to have this. I think this is possibly pushing the boundaries of the Bill a little far, but if the Minister will accept Amendment 19, I will go quiet on Amendment 29.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, it appears that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, wishes to speak after the Minister.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Thank you. I did send an email—it is probably lurking in the system. Coming back to the Minister’s assessment that the costs would be low, I am again looking at one of my noble friend’s favourite documents—the impact assessment. It is limited in scope but does have estimates of costs. The Government’s best estimate—this has the Minister’s signature on the front, so I assume that he agrees—is £18.2 million, the majority of which will be absorbed somewhere in the regulatory system. I suggest that that is not a small amount of money for the regulatory sector. Can the Minister calibrate what he just told us or explain how these two numbers meet up?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for that question. I do not think that I can really add to what is in the impact assessment. Those costs are incurred over a number of years, but I think the impact assessment was carefully prepared and that those are the costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for putting this amendment forward, and I commend him on the forcefulness of his speech. I am not going to repeat things he said, but I agree with his points. During the opening group, I touched on this issue and outlined the powers that are being taken into this clause, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred just now. I am still trying to understand what the Government think they are going to improve by doing this.

In essence, because of Brexit, the simple reality is that we are losing access to a considerable source of professionals. That is a problem, or potentially a problem. There is absolutely no certainty that we can replace them in another way, but there is also no certainty—indeed, possibly the opposite—that these clauses are going to help that to happen. So the idea that “We are from the Government and we are here to help you recruit people” seems to be unfounded.

There are two problems with Clause 1. One is that it seems to be a misguided effort. The other, which was front and centre of the points the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made, is that this is the Government overstretching themselves in taking powers upon themselves and grabbing secondary legislation opportunities. We know that there is virtually no chance to amend—there have been very few examples in my lifetime where secondary legislation has actually been turned down. So it is with that that we on these Benches are supporting this amendment, and, of course, similar arguments will be put forward later on in the evening.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 1 enables regulations to be made—as we have heard, they are never overturned—to require a specific regulator to put in place a procedure for assessing whether to treat overseas qualifications as if they were UK ones. However, we still do not know how many of the 60 actually lack such a power. The Minister wants this Bill; he says that it is necessary. Could he please list those regulators which, if circumstances required extra skilled professionals, could find that their statutes were insufficient and thus that they would need to be mandated, by law, to introduce a new process? Because, frankly, if there are no regulators that need this power, we do not need a law to give it to them.

If the regulator wanted to introduce such a process, and had the statute, why would it have to be mandated to do it? If the regulator does not want to introduce such a process, how autonomous is a regulator if it can then be told by a Government that it must do so with the force of law? It may, as the Minister has said, be just a process that they have to introduce, but we are, nevertheless, talking about the Government mandating a regulator to do something that it does not want to do—because if it does want to do it, it will just do it.

So the Minister needs to list the regulators who do not already have the power to adopt such a process. I understand that there may well be some, but it would be nice to know which ones they are. If the regulator has such a power, but does not want to introduce a process to assess whether somebody’s qualifications should be agreed, how does he justify mandating the regulator by law to do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I will be very brief. In his response, the Minister said that the calculation for shortages would be granular. Whether it is because it is late or because I am stupid, I do not really understand what that means. Perhaps he can add it to his correspondence list. In that regard, it will help greatly if the letters that the Minister has promised can come before the next day in Committee, where possible, because it will certainly lubricate the process.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Lord Fox Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, given the United Kingdom’s position on the G7, we should in fact be a net skills exporter rather than an importer. It is to be regretted that this is not within the scope of the Bill and not the discussion that we are having, because that is at the heart of the reason that many of these clauses are in place. I have less regret that I will not be talking about accountants or auditors.

There is more than a smack in this Bill of, “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help you.” As pointed out by the last speaker and by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the very existence of the assistance centre rings alarm bells to some extent. We have to examine how—if indeed the Government are to help—the Bill will cause things to be better. It is very difficult to tell. I am not in the Minister’s address book. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I did not receive the important letter that revealed all about this Bill. There are so many unknowns, not least because its ultimate operation is masked in the cloak of invisibility as given by the upcoming secondary legislation that we have yet to see. This is a skeleton Bill. I welcome the comments of others on this subject, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I hope that the spirit of his words will be turned into actions by Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition as we get further through the Bill.

No one denies—and the Government seem to have to assert—that there is an advantage of diversity contributed by professionals brought in from overseas, but I would refute the idea implicit in the Bill that EU and EEA membership inhibited our international recruitment aims. As was so eloquently acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, you have only to look at the non-European professionals and the roles they play in the National Health Service to see that it was perfectly possible within the past regime to bring many international non-European professionals into this country.

However, it is not clear what effects the Bill will have on the future recruitment of healthcare professionals. Indeed, the Government themselves have acknowledged that the healthcare sector may need a transition period to phase this in. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain: first, why is that necessary? Secondly, is the mysterious and rapid change already coming to the Bill aimed at helping that? And, thirdly, if it is affecting the healthcare sector, why will it not affect other core sectors to come?

My noble friend Lord Purvis brought up the common travel area, particularly the Swiss agreement around that. More generally, the Government have stated:

“The revocation of the 2015 Regulations does not affect commitments under the CTA”


—the common travel area. However, I observe that the Government also said that the Northern Ireland protocol would not help to create a border down the Irish Sea, so we have to be careful about what we take from this.

In the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the Government say:

“both the UK and Irish governments have agreed to ensure there are adequate routes to recognition for qualified professionals across the UK and Ireland.”

What is the nature of these routes, when might we see them emerge on a road map and how will this be taken forward? There are real questions about professionals who get recognised in countries that are not recognised in the EU; how will they be able to practise in Ireland? Could the Minister give a detailed response to that particular question, perhaps by letter?

The Government have said that the interim system has to go because it was perceived as offering preferential treatment to professionals with Swiss and EEA qualifications. As such, to handle this perception, the Bill rounds down access, rather than rounding it up: it knocks back market access and throws away the potential services of many highly skilled EEA people before it has established a positive route from other countries. I suggest that this is not in the best interests of United Kingdom citizens.

From my noble friends Lady Randerson and Lady Garden, we heard how hard it is to implement reciprocal arrangements—it is enormously difficult. We only have to look at the numbers of different professions and countries, and multiply them, to see that there are thousands of potential negotiations. I am very keen to hear how the Government see the current flow of professionals. Will the list that my noble friend Lord Purvis talked about get longer—will more professions be added to it?

We then talk about trade the other way. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, sandwiched, between his enthusiasm and his advocating for the accountancy profession, a really stark warning for the Government. He warned clearly that the service sector in this country cannot operate if it does not establish recognition of the professional qualifications of the people who deliver the profit in it.

When the Minister very kindly met with me and colleagues, I asked about that mutual recognition process: why, I asked, would a particular organisation in a particular country let in more professionals to compete? This follows the suspicions that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has on the subject of some professionals blocking out others. The Minister’s view was that, by removing this reciprocal arrangement, we will encourage the Europeans to negotiate. First, I was interested in, and appreciated, the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, because we were told that we were already having those discussions, but it seems that we were not. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that issue: have we actually discussed with our former European colleagues how we could have mutual recognition? If not, why not—because the Minister in charge said that we were?

Looking forward, the Government are of course not leaving things to chance on the supply side. We have heard that they are taking on powers to create a demand-led approach to the issue of a shortage of professionals in this country. I am interested in the words “demand-led”, and I wonder why they were used. I am suspicious that it is to try to allay the fears of people who associate this with immigration—I note the conversation earlier—and that this is designed to ameliorate the fears of people who feel that this will lead to mass migration. This a folly and not needed. We need to talk properly about what skills we need in this country.

The Government are deciding to take on themselves the ability to assess demand for professionals. We have heard from other speakers that that is a very fraught route. There are known knowns: we know that if the Government are to allow hundreds of thousands of houses to be built in the British shires, we will need more quantity surveyors. But there are unknowns—for example, the fintech industry. The fintech industry was built by people who were here before there was a fintech industry. If there had been a quota for fintech people, there would have been no fintech. There is an innovation-stifling nature within the centre of the Bill. For a Government who have abandoned industrial strategy to start to look at demand management of skills is really quite ironic.

I call on the Minister to address what, in reality, the Government can do about demand. It is not clear what the reaction of the Government would be if the regulators failed to deliver sufficient professionals of the nature that the Government had decided that demand required. I had a response from the Minister that said that if they did not do this, they would be breaking the law. But did not do what? Meet a quota or put the right words on a website? We need much more clarity around what the Government can really do about changing the flow of professionals. My sense is that this is overreaching and will underdeliver, and that it might be better to limit the ambition early. It is interesting that a Government, particularly fronted by a Minister who has so obviously thrived in an open and international market, should look at how skills are delivered in this micromanagement-centred and government-centred way. I would be interested in his personal view on this.

Many Ministers have mentioned the cavalcade— I think my noble friend Lady Randerson used “avalanche”—of secondary legislation. The contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, was very helpful, and we look forward to the committee’s full report. The Government will have to think again, and we will obviously play our part in helping that thought to emerge.

My noble friends Lord Purvis, Lady Randerson and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill have all raised other important points. If the Minister is hearing some of these arguments multiple times, it is because the same issues were thrown up on the then Trade Bill and internal market Bill. They are an inevitable consequence of the route we have been forced down by the trade deal we have with the EU. I have said on many occasions that free trade is facilitated by the ability of people to ply their services globally. I have proposed amendments that would cause that to happen. To be fair, the Minister and the Bill use the language of free trade—dare I say, liberally—but in reality, when this Bill gets assent, it will establish a system that offers less free trade, less mobility and more associated paperwork. If the Government are here to help, perhaps the Minister can explain, in detail, how this really helps British business and citizens live their lives in this country.

Post Office Update

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, let us remind ourselves of the human scale of this outrage. Starting more than 20 years ago, the Post Office prosecuted nearly 1,000 sub- postmasters and sub-postmistresses based on incorrect information from a recently installed computer system. Some went to prison following convictions for false accounting and theft, many were financially ruined, and some have since died with the shame of this still hanging over them and their families.

As we know, a subset of those people were acquitted and, as we discussed around a month ago, the Government have asked Sir Wyn Williams to inquire into this episode. We are of course pleased that the lid is beginning to be lifted on some of these issues. Speaking on 28 April about suggestions that the inquiry was underpowered, the Minister was very clear:

“Given that all parties so far are committed to co-operating, we remain of the view that a non-statutory inquiry is the right approach.”


He added:

“However, if Sir Wyn does not get the co-operation he requires, then all options are on the table and we will not hesitate to act.”—[Official Report, 28/4/21; col. 2324.]


Today we are discussing a new Statement that says the context of the inquiry has changed, hence the move to a statutory basis, but it cites the successful appeal as that context. That is strange as the results of that appeal were available on 28 April. So what has actually changed? What has caused the department to change its mind? For example, has the co-operation of which the Minister spoke evaporated? If so, who is now no longer co-operating?

I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, or I are surprised that this change has had to happen. Like her, we welcome it as a small step in the right direction, but I point out that on an already tight schedule this has not helped. On 28 April the Minister said he expected the report in the summer, and in your Lordships’ House the Minister was adamant that this deadline could be met. Now the inquiry report is delayed. What will take the extra time? What has caused that delay? Will the new deadline of the autumn be met?

As the Statement suggested, the terms of reference for Sir Wyn have been amended. As we do not have the benefit of tracked changes, can the Minister please outline for the record and for your Lordships the principal changes in those terms of reference? If we look overall at the terms of reference, the overriding problem is there for all of us to see: six clauses, each set out with very passive language. “Assess”, “understand” and “acknowledge” are all good words, I will admit, but they are not an indicator that this inquiry has any way to identify culprits. They are not the words of a robust bringing to book. Even if he wanted to, Sir Wyn will not be able to go beyond those terms of reference as there is no wriggle room. If this is the only inquiry, I fear it is not going to be a satisfactory one.

For example, section B of the terms of reference uses the words

“to establish a clear account of…the implementation and failings of Horizon”

and the Post Office’s use of that information—the latter are my words, not those of the ToR. Given that this inquiry is essentially a fact-finding mission, what will the Government do with the facts when they get them? Further, it seems to be focused largely on the failure of the Horizon system and not that of Post Office management—and, as we know, this case was compounded by what appears to have been an intentional decision by the Post Office not to disclose material that undermined its case. So where in the terms of reference will this issue be tested and judged?

As in other cases, there are two levels of failure here. The first was an excess of trust in the system and technology; the second was the failure to deal with the consequences of this when the facts became apparent to some people within that organisation. This inquiry is set up to learn lessons from history but not to deal with the legacy of this past. With these terms of reference, I do not see how this inquiry will establish culpability from these facts, and how it will be the means to deliver resolution to the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and their families over whom this case hangs. I do not see it as a route to compensating these people. So, while it is a step forward, I can understand why former sub-postmasters are demanding a judge-led inquiry into this scandal. I have a great deal of sympathy for their demand.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their comments. Let me say from the start that I completely share their outrage about this scandal, as I think they both know. It has been going on for many years, under many different Ministers and Governments, and we should all accept our share of the responsibility for the dreadful way these poor people were treated. Nobody who saw them emerging on to the steps of the High Court a few weeks ago could have failed to have been moved by what they had to say.

Turning to the many questions that the noble Lords asked, as I said, this Government deeply regret that this situation has occurred. Since it was launched in September 2020, the Post Office Horizon inquiry has made swift progress. The inquiry’s chairman, Sir Wyn Williams, and his team have heard from many affected postmasters and gathered evidence from key parties, including the Post Office, my department, UKGI and Fujitsu.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the changes to the terms of reference. It is clearly critical that the inquiry is able to look at exactly what decisions were made and why, in relation to the Horizon prosecutions, so that lessons can be learned. The terms of reference have changed to clarify that the inquiry can investigate the Post Office’s decision-making in taking action against postmasters, including pursuing prosecutions and a fairly aggressive legal strategy, and in particular of course it can investigate the cases of those whose prosecutions have now been quashed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked about accountability. Let me be clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that the inquiry can make findings of fact and make recommendations. With regards to accountability, as noble Lords will understand, matters of criminal and civil law remain for the courts, as only the courts can make such judgments. However, they and other bodies can draw on the findings of the inquiry when considering these issues. It is therefore now for Sir Wyn to establish what happened, what went wrong and why it went wrong. We can then consider whether more needs to be done in the light of those findings.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the timeframe for the inquiry. The deadline for the final report has now been extended to autumn 2022, to take account of the new statutory nature of the inquiry, but we are expecting a progress update later this summer. The changes to the inquiry’s timeline mean that Sir Wyn will have more time to determine exactly what went wrong at the Post Office during this period and to make sure that a situation such as this cannot happen again.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, both raised the issue of compensation. I know that many postmasters, and Peers across this House, have called for further compensation for those who have been caught up in this situation. Those whose convictions have been quashed, with a settlement amounted in the group litigation, are of course outside the scope of the inquiry. But, as I said previously, the Government are keen to see that all sub-postmasters whose convictions are overturned are fairly compensated as quickly as possible. We will ensure that we work with the Post Office to make this happen as quickly as it is possible to organise.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to Fujitsu. She will be aware that two Fujitsu employees are still the subject of a police investigation. However, so far Fujitsu has co-operated fully with the terms of the inquiry. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that all actions of the Post Office, including its fairly aggressive legal strategy, can and will be examined under the terms of the inquiry.

National Security and Investment Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 28th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. I agree entirely with what he had to say and with the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord West of Spithead, too. It comes down to a very simple proposition: throughout, we have been very clear that if the Government would simply amend the memorandum of understanding with the Intelligence and Security Committee to include reference to the Investment Security Unit, there would be no need for any amendment to the Bill. That remains the case now. The question why the Government are not doing this.

The Minister in the other place said on Monday night:

“The work of the security services on investment security in support of the ISU clearly falls within the remit of the ISC.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; col. 154]


If that is the case, what is the impediment to adding the ISU into the memorandum? I think it is that the Government do not interpret the ISC as having a remit that extends beyond what the intelligence services themselves have offered by way of information to the Investment Security Unit in BEIS, to the point where —as the noble Lord, Lord West, quite accurately summarised—the scrutiny of how national security is being maintained in the decisions that become part of the interim or final orders made under this Bill.

The Government’s problem may be that they think that if they were to include the ISU in the memorandum of understanding, they would effectively create some duplication between the scrutiny of the order-making power by the BEIS Select Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee’s scrutiny. That need not be the case. It is perfectly clear already, within the memorandum of understanding that was quoted by Dr Lewis in the debate on Monday night, that the ISC’s work in looking at the intelligence services

“‘will not affect the wider scrutiny of departments…by other parliamentary committees. The ISC will aim to avoid any unnecessary duplication with the work of those Committees.’”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; col. 160]

It seems to me that the resolution is very simple—the Government should simply add the Investment Security Unit into the memorandum of understanding. It is clear from what the ISC’s chair and members have said that they would not expect to duplicate the work of BEIS —the primary scrutiny of BEIS’s work—in implementing this legislation, but there are specific questions that relate to the use of intelligence and highly sensitive intelligence materials.

I was not comforted by reading that the chair of that committee in the other place has been told by the Secretary of State that he will brief him on privy counsellor terms. That tells us that the chair of the committee may know something, but the BEIS Select Committee in the other place will not generally know it. Its members will not be able to discuss that information and they will not be able to report on that basis. There is clearly a deficiency, as Dr Lewis quite rightly said—a scrutiny gap—in relation to the use of top-secret material on a routine basis in informing decisions made under this legislation. The inclusion of the ISU in the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee will close that scrutiny gap.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister used the word heavyweight; I would use the word authoritative about the speeches we have heard from the noble Lords, Lords West, Lord Butler, Lord Lansley, and my noble friend Lord Campbell. I do not have the same authority, but I have an eye for process and an eye for a discontinuity. At the heart of this is a central contradiction. This Bill is called the National Security and Investment Bill, and its central premise is that the world of security has changed. It is not about armies and air forces; it is about technology—the spread of technology and access to that technology. The Bill is built on the idea that we need an approach to the commercial use, sale and protection of this technology for the security of this country.

The speeches that the Minister has heard were characterised in his preceding speech as somehow decrying the abilities of the BEIS Select Committee. The BEIS Select Committee was not put in place to assess the security issues that these companies are facing. That is not its job; its job is to do what BEIS was there to do. This Bill, by its nature, by its very name, is a hybrid of two very important issues: investment and security. The BEIS Select Committee is there and is an expert on the first of those. The ISC is there to protect the country and to offer scrutiny on security issues. There is no problem in asking both of those committees to do what they are good at in order to fulfil the very important task that Bill seeks to undertake.

We can only conclude that, because the Government decided not to do this and because, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, put it, they have a large majority in the other place, they will continue down this road. There is another opportunity for the Government to think again and do the most sensible thing, which is to amend the MoU. It does not require primary legislation, in my understanding, and would be done very quickly with the consent of this House. For that reason, if the noble Lord, Lord West, decides to put this to a vote, these Benches would like to ask that question of the people across the way, at least one more time.

Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and others, including “Panorama” and Nick Wallis on Radio 4, whose championing of the postmasters’ cause helped, finally, to move this towards a just outcome.

Like other noble Lords, I have heard this dismal story many times, but I still have that mixture of shock, horror, shame and some anger with every new hearing. How is it possible that no one in a position of authority noticed that, all of a sudden, hundreds of some of the most upright and respected members of local communities had, almost at the same time, taken it on themselves to start pilfering? How come nobody thought to ask some simple questions? How come the Post Office, adding insult to injury, continued to pursue loyal employees, often with expensive lawyers, long after it was clear that something was amiss? This has been perhaps the most widespread legal miscarriage of justice that I know of; justice has been a long time coming.

Naturally, we welcome the Court of Appeal’s ruling overturning the convictions of 39 postmasters, but, as Lord Justice Holroyde said, the Post Office

“knew there were serious issues about the reliability of Horizon”

and had a “clear duty to investigate” the system’s defects. Despite this, the Post Office

“consistently asserted that Horizon was robust and reliable”,

and

“effectively steamrolled over any sub-postmaster who sought to challenge its accuracy”.

Was the Post Office not curious about this sudden outbreak of illegality? Did it not read the specialist press? As early as 2015, possibly before, Computer Weekly was warning of problems and, even worse, it now reports that Fujitsu bosses knew about Horizon’s flaws all along, yet allowed it to be rolled out to the Post Office network, despite being told that it was not fit for purpose. Back in 2019, a High Court judge ruled that Horizon was “not remotely reliable” for the first 10 years of its existence, which was obvious to Fujitsu and surely evident to the Post Office. Even when the Post Office knew that there were “serious issues” about the reliability of the system, it continued bringing

“serious criminal charges against the sub-postmasters on the basis of Horizon data”

and “effectively steamrolled” anyone who challenged its accuracy.

Even after the High Court vindicated postmasters in 2019, the Government refused to intervene, allowing the Post Office to abuse its power over postmasters. Will the Minister acknowledge the Government’s failure of oversight?

The Post Office let individual postmasters pay a terrible price for its incompetence and cowardice. Seema Misra, falsely accused of stealing £75,000, was sentenced to 15 months in jail while pregnant with her second child. Rubbina Shaheen, accused of stealing over £40,000, spent 12 months in jail. Jo Hamilton, accused of taking £36,000, gave up her shop and, because of her criminal record, found it impossible to get another job. While these convictions have finally been quashed, the hurt, damage and enormous costs remain—to say nothing about those who died before they could be vindicated by last week’s ruling.

So there are questions that the Government must answer. Why are Ministers refusing a statutory inquiry, with subpoena powers and a remit to consider compensation? Given that postmasters are having to spend some of their compensation on legal fees, will the Minister confirm that additional support will be made available to cover such costs? What steps will the Government take to hold Fujitsu to account? Given that it was found to be complicit in covering up the software bugs that led to the false Post Office prosecutions, will it be asked to pay for the monstrous damage that it has done to hundreds of lives?

Given the acknowledgement in the Minister’s letter that steps need to be taken to ensure fair compensation, will he promise—not just undertake, but promise to this House—that it will be done speedily, generously and with no more of the foot-dragging that has besmirched this whole saga? Does the Minister agree that there should now be a criminal investigation into potential wrongdoing, given the knowing cover-ups that led to false prosecutions?

There is one other point I want to make. These postmasters were criminalised by a culture that assumed that technology is infallible and workers dishonest. Given that in future, technology will play an ever-larger role in the world of work, stringent protections will be needed against this “computer says” culture. We must not get to the point where directors, and Governments, automatically side with technology over their workers—or, indeed, over claimants or consumers. If ever technology is trusted without question, or there is inadequate human oversight and challenge, I fear that this will not be the last time that individuals are unfairly treated by a Big Brother who is neither infallible nor accountable.

This has been a sad story. It now rests with the Government to provide fast and full compensation, and to put right the ills that many people have suffered.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to your Lordships’ House, and for his two letters to all Peers over the last five weeks. I should say that I have been a member of the Post Offices APPG for some time.

Looking back, the Government have said that they will determine what went wrong. Of course, we absolutely support that. To this end, their route has been to ask Sir Wyn Williams to lead the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry. The inquiry, they say, will work

“to fully understand these events, gather available evidence and ensure lessons have been learnt so that this cannot occur again.”

I am sure that this will be a thorough investigation, which will shine a bright light on systems and programmes, and their implementation. But can the Minister reassure us that it will also illuminate the overriding issue of how this business behaved? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has just eloquently set out, the moral shortcomings of the management are central to why this happened. To fully understand this issue, as the Government want to, they need a thorough appraisal of the management culture of the Post Office. It is changing the culture that makes sure that something never happens again, not updating an operating system or rewriting a computer programme.

Can the Minister please make available the full terms of reference according to which Sir Wyn will conduct his inquiry? Government communications include the phrase:

“The Government look forward to receiving Sir Wyn’s report in the summer”.


Does the Minister expect the report to be completed by this summer, or have I misunderstood? If so, what support will the investigation have to run to such a tight timetable? I am concerned because this is not a statutory inquiry. What will happen if individuals retain lawyers to represent their interests? How will Sir Wyn proceed in those circumstances?

I echo the praise given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom. He has tenaciously pursued this issue, and in February last year he asked a question of the then Under-Secretary of State at BEIS, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank:

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the Post Office’s powers to conduct prosecutions.”-


The response was that

“the Post Office’s powers to bring a private prosecution, which fall under section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, are not specific to that company.”—[Official Report, 4/2/20; col. 1709.]

I forewarned the Minister that I would bring this up, because my understanding is that while it has not been granted investigative powers, the Post Office has regularly undertaken joint investigations with the police and other investigative bodies that do have statutory investigating powers. It was granted access to the national police computer system for intelligence and prosecution purposes; it had financial investigators appointed by the National Crime Agency for the purpose of undertaking financial investigations for restraint and confiscation proceedings; and Royal Mail was included in the list of relevant public authorities, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, designated to grant authorisations for the carrying out of directed surveillance to investigate crime. The Minister’s views on that would be welcome. Is it really still appropriate that this organisation should enjoy those powers?

This is by no means the end of the road, as the Statement makes clear. In yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons, my honourable friend Christine Jardine MP asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Paul Scully, to give an assurance that the Government will commit to treating each of the former sub-postmasters as individuals. The Minister acknowledged that, as well as those prosecuted, there were those whose lives had been blighted by incorrect accusations. I am pleased to report that he acknowledged the human cost. However, it is not clear to me what this acknowledgment means in practice. How will the Government embark on treating everybody individually? As part of the settlement, we have the historical shortfall scheme and it has been explained that this had received over 2,400 applications when it closed last August. First, although this is more than the Post Office anticipated, is the Minister satisfied that everybody who could have applied for this was aware of it and did? Secondly, the Minister was clear that Her Majesty’s Government will support the Post Office with resources. We of course endorse that. We do not yet know what form compensation will take and how it will be calculated. However, in a Written Answer, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said:

“we will not spend more of taxpayer’s money than is necessary to ensure that the Scheme meets its objectives.”

That sounds like a management expectation exercise and is a bit ominous. This is not an area, or a time, for penny pinching.

However financially generous the scheme turns out to be, the Government have to be clear that they can never fully compensate for the emotional and social damage that has been visited on many thousands of innocent people in this country.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their comments. I completely share many of their sentiments of shock and outrage. The tragic failings of the Post Office have occurred over many years, over many different Governments. On behalf of the current Government I can only say that we are truly sorry.

We welcome the decision of the Court of Appeal on 23 April to quash the 39 convictions. This is in addition to the six convictions that were quashed in the Crown Court in December. The impact that this ordeal has had on affected postmasters, their lives and livelihoods cannot be overstated. Nobody who saw the television coverage and the news reports the other day can fail to have been affected by the individuals featured. We certainly hope that, with this decision, these postmasters can at least start the process of moving forward to a new chapter in their lives.

I move on to the specific issues raised by the noble Lords. On compensation, the Government hope that the court’s decision is another important step towards bringing resolution to these postmasters. The Court of Appeal’s judgment will require careful consideration by all involved, and the Post Office itself will need to consider the next steps and the best process for fairly compensating these postmasters. We are keen to see that all those whose convictions are overturned are fairly compensated as quickly as possible and we will certainly work with the Post Office towards this goal. I understand the strength of feeling felt by those postmasters in the GLO who I understand only received a portion of the original £57.75 million settlement by the Post Office. However, that was a full and final settlement reached between the claimants in the GLO and the Post Office.

Both noble Lords mentioned the inquiry. Many postmasters and their families have suffered issues and distress since the faults in the Horizon system. We all agree on that. Some had their livelihoods and businesses taken away and were convicted of crimes that we now know they did not commit. Anybody can only imagine the distress that that must have caused to loyal, upstanding and honest members of the community. We are clear that a situation such as this must never, ever be allowed to happen again.

To ensure that the right lessons are learned, and to establish what must change, we launched an independent inquiry, led by Sir Wyn Williams, in September last year. He is a retired High Court judge with a wealth of experience and is fully independent of both the Government and the Post Office. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the inquiry has made swift progress. It has already heard from a wide group of affected postmasters. The call for evidence has recently closed and I understand that Sir Wyn is planning to have some public hearings on these matters in June. I can confirm that we expect to get his report by the end of the summer.

Given that all parties so far are committed to co-operating, we remain of the view that a non-statutory inquiry is the right approach. However, if Sir Wyn does not get the co-operation he requires, then all options are on the table and we will not hesitate to act. We do expect his report in the summer.

On who is to blame, decisions regarding the litigation strategy at the time were taken by the Post Office based on the legal advice that it had received. The Government at the time relied on the Post Office’s management to investigate issues with the Horizon system. As we have seen from both Mr Justice Fraser’s judgment and now the Court of Appeal judgment, the Post Office consistently maintained that the Horizon system was robust. That obviously turned out to be incorrect. What is also clear, from the Court of Appeal judgment last week and the judgments in the 2019 group litigation, is just how misguided the Post Office was in its approach to the management of issues arising from the operation of the IT system. All of these matters will be investigated in the inquiry, so that we can ensure this never happens again. I commit to keeping the House fully informed.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised the issue of private prosecutions. The Post Office no longer undertakes any private prosecutions, and I have been personally assured by the new chief executive that it has no plans to undertake any further prosecutions in these matters. However, the Government understand the wider challenge that the Post Office case poses regarding the responsibilities that companies have in undertaking private prosecutions. The Justice Select Committee considered this last year and concluded that prosecutions brought by victims of crime themselves, whether corporate or individual, still have a valuable part to play. The Select Committee concluded that existing safeguards in place to regulate private prosecutions are effective at filtering out weak claims. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, himself acknowledged, the Post Office’s powers to bring private prosecution fall under Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and they are not specific to that company. It has the same right as any other, whether an individual or a company, to bring a private prosecution but, as I said, I have been assured that it has no plans to bring any further prosecutions.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, was kind enough earlier today to mention the issue of the Post Office and its investigatory powers. Since he did, I have asked my officials to investigate this matter. There are, apparently, over 600 public authorities that can use investigatory powers, and these are overseen by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. There have been no changes to the authorities that the IPCO oversees since the introduction of the Investigatory Powers Act. According to the IPCO 2019 annual report, Post Office Ltd is not on that list.