UK-EU Relations

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I restate that we are committed to addressing this. I will write to the noble Lord on his points.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I concur with my noble friend the shadow Leader’s comments about the timeliness of accountability. In that context, given the limited opportunities for scrutiny and oversight of the Government’s EU policy, with the demise of the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place—in contrast to the forensic, detailed scrutiny of the previous Government’s negotiating policy in the run-up to our exit in 2021—will the Government now change or reverse their policy and publish an extensive strategy in terms of a negotiating mandate to be put to the European Union in the next few months, particularly on the specific point of the role of the European Court of Justice?

On the second point—I am not sure the Minister answered it directly—will she give an unequivocal commitment to protect UK fishing rights, even under pressure from the Prime Minister’s good friend, President Macron, in the forthcoming negotiations?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

On fishing rights, in approaching future access arrangements beyond 2026, our position is clear: we will continue to advocate for and support UK fishing communities while ensuring that we meet our shared international obligations. On the timing of the debate, I repeat what I said earlier: attempts will be made to improve timeliness after the Recess, but Statements are scheduled and agreed with the usual channels. On whether there should be a European committee, my understanding is that there is one. Arguably, given the dire need for a reset following the previous Government’s deteriorating relations with the EU, there should have been more scrutiny under the previous Government, not less.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

34: Clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out “2025-26” and insert “beginning after the tax year in which an impact assessment is published assessing the impact of the provisions in this section on community pharmacies.”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent commencement of this section until a full impact assessment is published for community pharmacies.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this, the third day of Committee on this very important Bill. I say at the outset to the Minister and noble Lords that, again, this is a commencement amendment and does not seek in any meaningful way a permanent exemption to this jobs tax. It is merely an opportunity for the Government to think again, based on up-to-date and more contemporary empirical evidence, so that they can study properly a full impact assessment, as the Bill has an impact on a very important part of the healthcare sector: community pharmacies.

The Minister will know that there is significant concern across the whole NHS and the wider healthcare sector about the implications of these fiscal changes for community pharmacies. The figures produced by Community Pharmacy England suggest that these changes alone will generate an extra burden, an extra encumbrance, on community pharmacies of approximately £50 million, even with the changes in the employment allowance. If you strip out the employment allowance, the figure is approximately £74 million. If you add the two other cumulative factors to these fiscal changes, the encumbrance for community pharmacies is going to be very heavy.

Of course, on its own, we welcome the rise in the national minimum wage—we believe that low-paid people should be paid more and have a decent standard of living—but, remember, these burdens are falling on a particular part of the community. This will mean an extra cost of anything between £115 million and £152 million per annum, according to Community Pharmacy England. If you also add in the reduction in the business rates relief as it impacts on operating costs, the overall, universal impact on community pharmacies will be in the region of £200 million—that is, one-fifth of £1 billion.

Let us remember what community pharmacies are: an adjunct to the NHS, in that they are a neighbourhood health service. I accept that Governments have to make tough decisions; in fact, my own party, when it was in government, was not able to support community pharmacies to the level that we would have liked. There has been a real-terms reduction in pharmacy funding from central government since 2015. The lowest number of pharmacies are now open to the public at any time since 2009, which is 16 years ago: 1,250 pharmacies have closed since 2017. What we are talking about today is a policy decision that has at its heart the very viability of this sector.

As noble Lords will know, doctors and dentists are able to defray the costs of their non-domestic rates by direct reimbursement from the National Health Service. That is not the case with pharmacies; in fact, 90% of pharmacies’ work contracts are for NHS reasons and projects, such as dispensing advice and consultancy—principally dispensing.

Let us think about what community pharmacies do for their local communities. They are a lifeline. Flu immunisation, smoking cessation, sexual health services, alcohol misuse interventions, substance misuse services, healthy lifestyles, diet and nutrition, and generic health education—these are all vital functions that community pharmacies carry out. They take a sizeable burden off NHS acute hospital trusts—clinical commissioning groups as was—and, of course, primary care facilities.

They cannot put their prices up. Because they are locked into contractual arrangements, which are fixed, they cannot pass the costs on to the consumer. Often, they cannot make cuts in staffing or the services offered, or make redundancies, without in effect closing the facility—or at least hugely reducing the service that they deliver. They have, over the past 10 or so years, increased service delivery massively. They will put most public services to shame in terms of delivery of productivity in that period; indeed, they are the safety valve for the NHS.

We on this side of the Room are asking not for special favours or for the policy to be junked but for an opportunity for the Government to think again about the special circumstances of community pharmacies. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made an important point: the impact note that the Minister prayed in aid is out of date. I do not think that it has the up-to-date, topical data that it should have for the Government to properly consider, with the evidence available, the policy.

Incidentally, I should tell your Lordships that, naturally, I support the other amendments in this group: the employment allowance variation amendments, in respect of dentists and doctors, and, of course, Amendment 46 on pharmacies especially.

To conclude, this is about using an evidence-based analysis to create an impact assessment; to review the policy, at least; to inform the fairest and most sensible policy formulation; and to protect the interests of a vital part of our healthcare sector. If we do not do that, it will have a major impact on very vulnerable people who are NHS patients and who use the important services of community pharmacies. For that reason, I ask your Lordships to support this amendment and beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment on pharmacies. We must think of the impact. I have spoken to those who have been impacted already and worry that there is an impact not just on community pharmacies, which employ more pharmacists, but on small providers. When we look at what happens in towns and villages across the country, we see that, when a pharmacy closes down, elderly people, families and people looking for their prescriptions have to take a bus and go somewhere else. The impact on town centres of this sort of change can be quite significant. We have 3,560 independent pharmacies today.

In all of our debates today, we have spoken about the impact on each sector and how it might be alleviated, with amendment after amendment proposed from these Benches and from the Liberal Democrats, who spoke earlier in Committee. Barring retail and hospitality, today’s groups of amendments cover what are usually called public services. They are provided by independent providers. Some, such as the early years and hospice sectors, are charitable as well as independent. If they do not provide these services, there will be greater costs to the taxpayer, and they will do so in a much more bureaucratic and less person-sensitive way. The quality will go down and the cover will be broader; in fact, it will not meet the kind of person-to-person approach that we see offered by many independent providers.

I support my noble friend Lord Jackson because we are talking about people and their jobs: 80,000 pharmacists were employed in 2023-24. As well as them, we are thinking of pharmaceutical technicians, of which there are 34,300. These are real people and real jobs, and they are on top of the jobs that we have spoken about day in and day out in this Committee. I implore the Government and the Minister to think about what happens when people’s jobs go: not only do we as communities lose the services that are vital and which we have spoken about; we see an impact on our streets and our communities, and we increase the cost to the taxpayer—that will go further, in addition to the high hike in borrowing and the tax rises that the Government intend. We will see the further damage that will be caused to the economy. I implore the Government to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It would be helpful if the Minister clarified that. I am concerned about this backward-lookingness that tends to be a feature of our discussions, because we are trying to look forward and make sure that growth stops flatlining, so that this economy grows in the coming months and years. Saying that a particular rule on employment was laid down in the past and therefore that the Government are not going to change it is a mistake.

In this area, there is a lot of evidence of a problem. The NHS has been compensated for these steep increases. The private sector part of the health services sector, which I know the Minister’s Secretary of State and his advisers think can play an important part in the future, is being sold down the river. That seems to be a pity; we should take this opportunity to try and do something to improve things.

I withdraw my amendment—no, I have not moved it. Forgive me.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

People are withdrawing their amendments before even moving them.

If I could beg the indulgence of the Committee briefly, I wonder what the Liberal Democrats’ view on this policy is because I have a Liberal Democrat press release dated 16 December, entitled, “Liberal Democrats table amendment to exempt health and care providers from NICs hike”. Many Liberal Democrat MPs in the other place are quoted. I was not able to discern it in his remarks but is the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, against the whole policy with regard to community pharmacies and NICs, or just against the concept of doing a proper, thorough and robust empirical analysis and impact assessment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. I am of course still happy to write, so that we have absolutely clarified the point.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

We have established that an epistle will be oncoming from the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I am glad he has clarified that. I just think—

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Perhaps I may interrupt. I really think it was appropriate that we did not remake the speeches that we made extensively on days one and two. I am sorry if people were unable to attend or contribute on those days, but it is not sensible for us to continuously repeat the same statements that we have made over and over again. We have tried to observe that, out of respect for the Committee, and an assumption that those who are interested in what we had to say would have looked at Hansard.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is rather tetchy about that. I am seeking clarification of the Liberal Democrat policy, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has given me a very clear explanation, for which I am inordinately grateful. Perhaps I can now move on to speak to my Amendment 34.

I heard the Minister and, notwithstanding what colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches have said, I still think that he did not adequately address the issue of the data and the response since the Budget on this particular policy with this particular healthcare sector. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made a very cogent and valid point that it is not good enough to just keep saying, “We have no intention of publishing an impact assessment; that is the end of the debate”. That is not discharging the proper fiduciary duty of Ministers to make sure that they are pursuing the correct financial policies and know the impact they will have on individuals in the NHS and wider healthcare sector. That needs to be looked at again; perhaps it will be.

While I am on my feet, for the avoidance of doubt, I did attend on previous days in Committee. I was there, and I moved an amendment on day one, I think, should noble Lords want to read Hansard. With that caveat made, I feel duty bound to beg leave to withdraw my amendment, subject to further discussion on Report.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

Europe: Youth Mobility

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this debate. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his charming and heartfelt speech. I know that he will make a significant contribution to this House.

In principle, I welcome the concept of a youth mobility scheme. While most noble Lords in the Chamber are against the Government’s position, I am in the rather perverse position today of defending it, unless the Minister disappoints me later. Even within the last two or three years, we have undertaken bilateral arrangements and discussions with different countries including, indeed, with the EU on a multilateral basis for a youth mobility programme. As other noble Lords have said, in the last few years we have secured arrangements with various countries—Uruguay, Australia, New Zealand and Andorra—so we can do it. It is to be hoped that we can secure a scheme again.

Let me talk about the Turing scheme; some noble Lords are rather insouciant and dismissive of it. In 2023, more than 40,000 people benefited from the scheme across 474 successful applications. In 2022, there were 373 successful applications and more than 30,000 students involved. To come back to the point that the right reverend Prelate made about Erasmus+, I am afraid that he is seeing the glass half-empty, not half-full. Yes, we are not proficient in foreign languages, but the reason that Erasmus+ did not work for us post Brexit is that we are number two in the world for soft power—as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said—and people want to come to the UK. Over a seven-year period, the programme would have cost the UK a net £2 billion. On pure cost grounds, it was not feasible to continue that system.

In the same way, there are opportunities for collaboration, such as we see with the Horizon programme. Tunisia and Israel, for instance, are not in Horizon, but they have relationships with the European Union. This is a laudable aim, and I do not blame the British Chambers of Commerce and ABTA for making a strong point. I think, however, that your Lordships’ House needs to look at the wider political and economic context of this very difficult decision.

There is much criticism of the failure to include a youth mobility scheme in either the withdrawal agreement or the trade and co-operation agreement. With all due respect to noble Lords, the Government at that time had limited bandwidth; they had other pressing priorities and there was a lack of political willpower on both sides by the EU and United Kingdom. Many in your Lordships’ House did everything in their power to obstruct and thwart the UK’s formal legal exit from the EU over many months, which of course impacted negotiations. As someone who was closely involved as chief of staff to the Secretary of State for Brexit and worked closely with the Article 50 task force, I know that the Government had other issues: the financial settlement, the transition period, the Northern Ireland protocol, Cyprus and the sovereign bases, governance of the withdrawal agreement, and Gibraltar, to name the most important.

That brings me to the issue of citizens’ rights. For the more than 5 million EU citizens living in the United Kingdom, we have established in legislation and via the independent monitoring authority the most generous and benign immigration regime for non-citizens anywhere in the world. Indeed, in the next few months, the EU settlement scheme will migrate hundreds of thousands of those non-UK citizens from pre-settled to settled status as a result of a High Court case in 2022. That will enable them to have indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, which is de facto citizenship—despite the UK being a third country. No such reciprocal EU-wide regime exists to protect and enhance the rights of British citizens in the European Union.

The UK was one of only three countries that, in 2004, imposed no transitional requirements in respect of the free movement directive. The significant numbers who moved to the UK thereafter were many more than were envisaged by either politicians or academics at the time. From 2021 to 2024, more than 4.5 million immigrants migrated to the UK. After five years, the vast majority will be granted indefinite leave to remain, meaning access to benefits, social housing and the NHS. Net migration last year was 728,000. It peaked in 2023, shamefully, at 906,000; no party had put that in their manifesto and it was not agreed by any electors.

I hope to explain that that is why the Government are rightly wary of any policy that might give rise to a return to de facto free movement. By 2032, in just seven years’ time, Britain’s population will have risen by 5 million and, in 22 years, by 9 million—a 13% rise in only about 25 years. The immigration system is, frankly, broken, but I will illustrate the many areas of dysfunction—the student visa scheme is a good example of short-termism and putting off difficult financial choices for another day.

A glut of student visas was issued in 2021 and onwards, motivated in many cases by the prospect of two years’ work on the graduate visa route. The explosion was driven by huge numbers of people from developing countries attending the lowest cost, least selective institutions, often on shorter postgraduate taught courses. Rather than selling education to future researchers, our universities are increasingly in the business of selling visas to delivery drivers.

Why did the Government do this? Short-termism, and it was my party that was in government, I accept that. The long freeze in tuition fees means that the real-terms value of the fees paid by domestic students has dropped by £2,800 since 2012 and, as the Migration Advisory Committee puts it, the sector has “an overreliance on immigration” because the higher fees charged to foreign students are what is keeping the sector from toppling over. While this is good for universities, the wages of those on the graduate route and their ability to switch to longer-term visas suggest that it is less good for the UK. Eventually, if we do not get a grip on this, we will see more pressure on public services, a fall in per capita GDP, a failure to train and upskill our domestic workforce and more welfare dependency—not good for the future of the country.

This is the economic context in which we are debating this very important issue today. It is not making a value judgment on whether travel and broadening the mind is generally a good thing; it is just being realistic and pragmatic about the challenges we are facing. That said, I welcome the position paper put forward by the EU Commission seeking a mandate from the Council of Ministers that was published in April last year. I think it is the right thing to do and it is right that we have a meaningful set of negotiations between the EU and the UK on the youth mobility scheme—and it is one which I have read with great care.

It is in many ways a sensible and pragmatic opening position, with its emphasis on limited in time mobility and the fulfilment of certain conditions, such as subsistence funding, health insurance and appropriate travel documents. For me and, no doubt, His Majesty’s Government, there are still major impediments before a deal can be secured. Being a third country is a shibboleth for the intransigent absolutists of the European Union and the EU Commission—but it cuts both ways. Professor Catherine Barnard, professor of EU law at Cambridge University, has described the proposal as “a defensive strategy”, as much to prevent the possibility of the UK striking more liberal and permissive youth mobility agreements with individual EU countries on a bilateral basis. Third country status is a two-way street. Why should the UK set aside healthcare surcharges for EU citizens when we have an NHS under huge pressure? Why should we forgo income from foreign students from the EU while charging enhanced fees to those young people from South Korea, India, South Africa, Canada and the United States? We should not accept that we have as an encumbrance single market indivisibility.

The youth mobility scheme is part of the Government’s mythical reset—but of solid details, red lines, bargaining points and strategic objectives there are thus far none. If, as the German ambassador has made clear, the EU sees a youth mobility scheme as a priority, the EU will need to de-escalate potential conflict, loosen the rigid negotiation guidelines and be more realistic—perhaps by giving ground on the length of the programme to, say, two years; on higher education fees; on fixing a cap or quota; agreeing a realistic visa cost; and explicitly ruling out the competence of the European Court of Justice.

To finish on a positive note, as we all have today, I will quote Oscar Wilde:

“Travel improves the mind wonderfully, and does away with all one’s prejudices”.


For the avoidance of doubt, I support a programme that allows thousands of young people to travel, work, study, play sport and live among people of different backgrounds and cultures in Europe. It will undoubtedly benefit and enrich their lives and the wider community—I myself have travelled throughout Europe for over 40 years—but it must be done for our national benefit, in our long-term, sustainable national interest and in a pragmatic and realistic way. For that reason, I find myself, unusually, supporting the Government’s position.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for that. One of the four charities that I chair is a think tank, so I totally agree with her. In this country, the Charity Commissioners are particularly effective and very good at clamping down on organisations that are not proper charities. So we can be comfortable that any organisation registered with the Charity Commissioners as a charity is bona fide and generates good work, as the noble Baroness said.

I urge the Minister to have a deep think about this and consider an additional exemption for the private sector. An exemption has already been made for the public sector, so it is doable.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lady Sater. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Occasionally? It is more than occasionally.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am getting gently heckled by my noble friend Lady Noakes. It may be more than occasionally. On a serious point, we know that some taxes are easy to raise quickly; one is fuel duty and this is another. I implore the Minister that this will have real consequences for many years. It is having consequences now in displacement activity that is not going to the most vulnerable people.

I know that the Labour Party would not inflict that sort of upset on people; most people in the Labour Party are decent and community minded, and want to do the best for the local community. I know, having served with Labour Members of Parliament in the other place, that they care about their local community and their constituents.

I would just ask the Minister to think about this again, particularly this case of people who are trying to do their best for their fellow citizens. All these amendments are extremely compelling, so I ask him to reconsider. It will not show weakness, but will show strength, magnanimity and the ability to govern wisely. I think he should consider pushing that forward because it is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this rich and frequently passionate debate, and I thank the Minister for his answer. I think that I will cross-reference something that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, said, which is that charities are helping vulnerable people in dreadful circumstances. We have been talking about charities as organisations and institutions, but, ultimately, at the end of the line are those vulnerable people. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, made the point that those vulnerable people will still be there with their needs; if the charity closes down or cuts back its services, the Government will have to pick up the slack at that point. The Minister said that, if any of the measures proposed in this group of amendments were introduced, the Government would have to lower spending. But that would mean that they would have to raise spending on things they are not spending on now because the charities would not be providing it. We are in a circular situation, with all the disruption that happens as people lose jobs, organisations close down and things have to be recreated. That is the situation that we are in.

There were many contributions, so I will not go through them in length, but there are a couple of points that I want to raise. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, spoke about his brave, regular running commitments. To build on what he said, we know that what encourages people to give to charities is the sense that their money will be directly used to help the relevant people. Of course, when we are talking about something like WaterAid—speaking as someone who is passionate about antimicrobial resistance and maternal health—it is absolutely crucial. People want to see it providing the services and, if they do not see that, and they hear all the talk about this, maybe they will not donate, because they will feel like they are just giving money to the Government. That is a further damaging factor for charities and their fundraising.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, also spoke about sacking fundraisers. If one of the things that we are talking about—what my amendment aims to get to—is to delay so that charities have a chance to prepare. If there is not that delay, however, and there is an emergency that has to be dealt with now, you of course do not want to cut the direct service providers who care for those vulnerable people. Fundraisers, therefore, are the obvious people to sack, but the long-term consequences are obvious.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness agree with me that one of the other cumulative problems is the national living wage? We all agree that it should be increased to help low-paid people, but accommodating that for small charities—with an increase in national insurance charges plus the encumbrance of paying the national living wage—will be very difficult, particularly for homelessness charities, for instance. The Government’s strategic aim is to reduce homelessness, but this will put huge pressure on charities such as Crisis and Shelter.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

In responding to the noble Lord, I can only applaud the increase in the national minimum wage—indeed, I would encourage it to be significantly higher. None the less, the noble Lord’s point about the situation for charities is entirely accurate.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said something earlier—and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, backed this up—about how many ideas the Government end up delivering actually start with small, campaigning charities. They save the Government having to do the work because, when there is a problem and something really needs to be done about it, they do all the work on what needs to be done about it.

Obviously, I will withdraw my amendment at this stage, but it is clear that we will come back to this issue on Report. I am still quite dedicated to the idea of at least delaying the measure, which would not interfere with the Government’s long-term economic plans but would give charities time to adjust. On the £1.4 billion, the Government could save that much in the extra spending that they will have to make if they insist on collecting that money, so it all balances out.

Social Cohesion and Community during Periods of Change

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Friday 6th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate and I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Sharma on his impassioned maiden speech and welcome him to the House: he will make a great contribution.

How do we define social cohesion? What do we mean by social solidarity, shared values and social mobility? Finding unity in the midst of our diversity is our task. It is a social contract between different communities and an acceptance and championing of the liberal British values of freedom of speech, equality under the law, freedom of expression, democracy, fairness, equality of opportunity, mutual respect, neighbourliness, philanthropy and kindness. It also means a shared understanding of what makes our country: culture, civic engagement, history and heritage. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in its 2023 report listed

“sense of recognition”

and

“sense of belonging”

as key to social cohesion.

Notwithstanding the big global events—including conflict and uncertainty abroad—that have been discussed earlier, we have to address the realities of life and the challenges here in the UK. Frankly, the UK has never been richer, healthier, more peaceful and safer. Yet, things are going wrong and people are unhappy. Many people do not feel a sense of community and cohesion. They feel alienated from politics and government, bystanders in their own country and at the margins of decision making and economic prosperity. As far back as 2011, YouGov found that the majority of people agreed with the statement:

“Britain has changed in recent times beyond recognition, it sometimes feels like a foreign country, and this makes me feel uncomfortable”.


Certainly, mass uncontrolled and unfettered immigration has been disastrous for true community cohesion, because it has occurred without the imperative of true integration and the upholding of our social contract. It is a fair social contract: welcome to the UK, try to speak English, work hard, obey the law, do not claim benefits, respect the UK’s enduring traditions, and make and build a better life. Mass migration has undermined social and community cohesion, as has hyper-social liberalism, globalisation and ultra-individualism.

On 28 November, the Prime Minister said that Britain had been subject to

“an open borders experiment … This happened by design, not accident … Brexit was used … to turn Britain into a one nation experiment in open borders”.

We have seen the consequences: the stalled per capita GDP, which has catalysed ghettoisation and social isolation, embedded welfare dependency and put huge pressures on our public services. We have seen the pernicious impact of social media among young people—as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York stated—with the woke mind virus spreading and exacerbating discord between disparate groups by sex, gender, class, race, religion and ethnicity. We have seen the inability of Governments to deliver the most basic public services, despite record-high taxes and the burden on the working poor and small businesses while regulators fail to deal effectively with market distortions, dysfunction, monopolies, oligopolies and crony capitalism.

All these phenomena undermine the essence of community and social cohesion. It is why we have seen a rejection of the tired, visionless, managerialist political consensus in favour of communitarian politics: the politics of somewhere rather than anywhere, which recognises the importance of cultural and geographical rootedness for human well-being. It also sees local and national identity as wholesome and important, and values well-established traditional structures: family, sports clubs, village, town, county, country, parish. The ethos of social and economic liberalism by contrast represents selfish, egomaniacal, consumerist individualism. This gives rise to a lack of purpose, hopelessness, sadness, depression, lack of self-worth, worklessness and crime.

There was a time when many people would look to the traditional institutions, such as the Church of England, for guidance in a troubling world. But no more. The report published this week by Civitas, entitled Restoring the Value of Parishes, is a salutary and depressing critique of the leadership and management of the Anglican Church. I implore those on the Bishops’ Benches to return to the core role at the centre of our local and national life. Their centrality is vital in nourishing the parish network and providing spiritual sustenance, pastoral care, moral clarity and a framework to an anxious and discombobulated flock. My Church has lost its way and I hope and trust the Anglican family will recover its sense of purpose under a new leader.

Despite this, there is still hope. The UK remains one of the most successful examples of a multi-ethnic democracy in the modern world. I am indebted to Policy Exchange and its recently published report, A Portrait of Modern Britain: Ethnicity and Religion, which highlights the importance of fostering shared experiences and the bonds of social trust between different ethnic groups and across generations. It makes the sensible point that the term “ethnic minority” is increasingly meaningless. The Indian diaspora is different from the Afro-Caribbean, African, White British or Chinese communities and their experiences. But all believe:

“On balance, throughout history, Britain has been a force for good in the world”,


and:

“Children who are raised in Britain should be taught to be proud of Britain and its history”.


Indeed, we should celebrate such inclusive patriotism, our country’s record of industrial and scientific achievements, our proud history of parliamentary democracy and our abolition of the slave trade, when Wilberforce was not only the MP for Hull but also a Conservative. We should celebrate Magna Carta and our role in destroying the evil of Nazism and fascism in the Second World War. We should celebrate too our unifying moments, such as the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony in London, the vaccine rollout and Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations.

Over 50% of black and minority-ethnic Britons believe that someone of their race would be treated fairly in this country, and only one-fifth disagree. I endorse the report’s recommendations and invite the Minister to address these specific suggestions: a new national integration strategy, with the public sector equality duty interpreted to have integration at its heart; the creation of a statues of national celebration commission to identify historical British figures deserving of a statue, across all classes and ethnic groups; children to be taught to be proud of their national heritage and British history and traditions; reducing UK immigration dependency by developing new apprenticeships and skills bursaries; the Government agreeing to revivify the strategy to tackle place-based health inequalities; and for government agencies to disaggregate larger groups that are both ethnically and religiously diverse.

In conclusion, we live in a great country with a glorious history and heritage of which we should all be proud. Our challenge, for us and our children, is to bequeath a nation with a future that is safe, prosperous, proud, happy and united.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this important debate on the Bill. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to his place on the Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment to the Government. I am sure he will do an excellent job. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster. We were sparring partners in the other place and I am sure she will make a very strong contribution in this House.

The Bill appears beguilingly straightforward, benign and innocuous, but it contains some clauses that cause me a deal of concern and alarm, both for what is written in the Bill and—as my noble friend Lord Trenchard said—what is not written but omitted. I will concentrate my remarks on product regulation.

Naturally, we all support the imperative of responding to new product risks and opportunities, updating the law in respect of new and emerging business models in the supply chain, enhancing powers for market surveillance, working towards better product safety, including for products sold online, and addressing product recalls and traceability. The previous Government were committed to replacing and updating EU-derived regulations that were part of UK law, aiming to create a more coherent and effective product safety regime.

There is a consensus on the Government’s focus on innovation as a driver for the delivery of economic growth. That includes the safe development and supply of new technologies. As we know, a new modernised product safety regulatory framework has been needed for some time, as the Office for Product Safety and Standards pointed out in its 2018 report. New legislation was, of course, inevitable and probably advisable following the OPSS’s product safety review of March 2021, with the focus on updating the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. The previous Government legislated in secondary legislation that came into effect this month.

However, as noble Lords might expect, I have some reservations, particularly on Clauses 1(2) and 2(7), which contain powers to align UK laws with any EU environmental rules and a general power to provide that the EU standards shall apply respectively.

The language in Clause 2(7) is oddly technocratic but, at the same time, vague. It has significant ramifications in terms of a policy shift towards aligning with EU standards over time—dynamic alignment. Other noble Lords, such as my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Frost, mentioned this. The Bill also does not fully elucidate the details of what types of products are covered by its provisions—it references “nearly all manufactured products”—so will the Minister clarify this for the House? Will alignment with the EU regulatory regime include the EU’s 2023 safety regulations, due to come into force in the EU in December 2024, and the revised EU product liability directive, in the next few years? What steps will Ministers take to both consult with business and allow Parliament appropriate scrutiny and oversight of ministerial decisions? If the latter is not the case, will the Minister tell us whether the Government will bring forward primary legislation on product liability in the near future?

As Which? has rightly stated, this is an enabling Bill, a Henry VIII Bill, which allocates vast powers. The devil will of course be in the detail of the secondary legislation. I had a wry smile when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, reproaching my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for referencing the Henry VIII powers in the Bill. We were tripping over legal experts on the Cross Benches during the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, who pontificated and opined on that Bill’s traducing of parliamentary sovereignty by its Henry VIII powers. But I fear that the noble Lord is alone today and that his Cross-Bench noble friends who share his views are not present. The strange thing is that we now have a Labour Government, which might account for that.

The briefing paper from Which? rightly points out the lack of detail in the Bill on the duties and obligations of those supplying products in online marketplaces, for instance. I therefore invite the Minister seriously to consider the proposals outlined by Which? in the helpful briefing paper: an explicit set of provisions to detail key duties on online marketplaces and a commitment to publish, in good time before the duties come into force, any draft secondary legislation on how these duties will work in practice, and to consult key stakeholders on the design of those regulations.

Which? also made the very important point that a new parliamentary committee should be dedicated to scrutiny and to reviewing any proposed changes to product and metrology regulations, especially where the UK is opting to diverge from existing rules. I do not have a problem with defending the divergence of rules if it is in the long-term interest of UK businesses, looking outwards to global regulatory regimes—if it is defensible, of course.

Which? also proposes a commitment to ensure that, in the future, consumer and industry groups are given consultation rights over any significant rule changes that impact specific products and markets, in good time and before draft secondary legislation is published. I hope the Minister will address that in his speech.

As has been mentioned, in fairness, the Bill also contains provisions that allow the UK to end recognition of EU product regulations. I concede that, but the Minister might explain how such a decision might be triggered, what scrutiny Parliament will be able to exercise on that policy and what evidential basis will be required.

On the specific content of Clause 2(8), can the Minister explain the likely scenarios that would cause him or her to make reference to

“the social, environmental and economic impact”

of the Bill’s provisions and the rationale for this subsection, given that the Bill already complies with human rights provisions and environmental legislation? Dare I say that Clause 2(8) might just invite more litigation and judicial review? On that basis, it is perhaps unwise to place it in the Bill.

The Bill is opaque in many respects. It is a concern that the impact assessment prays in aid the enabling nature of the powers in this primary legislation and is therefore silent on the likely monetary costs of the Bill to business. Page 11 of the impact assessment specifically states:

“Impacts have therefore not been monetised and are discussed qualitatively”.


While the rationale for the Bill appears clear and unambiguous—that, at present, the UK lacks the power to end recognition or to recognise new and updated EU regulations in Great Britain—I am unconvinced of the corollary argument that, ipso facto, the UK will fall behind the EU and other jurisdictions and markets in its innovation, technological advances and competitiveness. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Foster, but I think it is important to take our time with the considered scrutiny of the Bill, because the devil will be in the detail—notwithstanding what he said about specific product issues, which are of course very important.

At the risk of being labelled deranged by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I refer noble Lords back to recent history and the ill-fated Chequers White Paper of 12 July 2018, the most consequential part of which considered the future economic partnership between post-Brexit UK and the European Union. These proposals were thrice rejected in the other place, and indeed by the EU in September 2018. The May Government proposed a common rulebook—I am sure we all remember that—for all goods, including agri-food, and a treaty commitment to harmonisation to provide frictionless trade. In addition, the PM promised binding commitments on state aid and competition, and non-regression clauses on level playing field issues, and the UK was de facto to remain in the customs union, which was then labelled the combined customs territory. Amazingly, senior civil servants briefed the EU that Chequers would give the UK no competitive advantage in business and commerce in the future, which seemed an odd position for the UK Government to take. There was no mandate, electorally or in Parliament, for what was effectively dynamic alignment —without a vote or a voice, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said. I say in passing that I agreed with the vast bulk of my noble friend’s very well-articulated remarks.

Finally, the Bill potentially undermines His Majesty’s Government’s manifesto commitment to remain outside the single market, opens up disputes over the reach of the European Court of Justice in its interpretation of legacy EU law, and traps entrepreneurs and innovators in the UK into a legal and regulatory framework that is inimical to British competitiveness, global ambitions and economic growth and prosperity. Let the Minister be assured that a number of us noble Lords will watch the progress of the Bill hawk-like and will fully hold him and his Government to account.

Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by addressing one of the claims made in support of a new law on conversion therapy. I hear regularly that Conservatives must support a Bill like this in order to keep our manifesto promise, but in fact a conversion therapy law was not part of any party’s manifesto at the last election. Forbes magazine’s LGBT correspondent decried that state of affairs in 2019, saying:

“None of the major U.K. parties has listed a ban on LGBT+ conversion therapy as a manifesto policy”.


The public have never voted for a law like this and we are not bound by any manifestos to support this or any other Bill.

We know that horrendous things happened to gay people in the past, but we can be thankful for good legislation that protects gay and trans people from abuse and coercion. But the impression given by those pressing for this law is that gay and trans people are being abused in their thousands by churches and therapists and that there is nothing the law can do about it. If a gay or trans person goes to a therapist or a church and they feel that they have been abused, they should report it to the police. If what they heard breaches the existing law, the CPS can prosecute. Of course, if it does not breach the existing law, that means that whatever was said to them was not abusive. They might have had an unpleasant experience, but you cannot criminalise unpleasantness. People have choice and agency. Groups such as Stonewall have calculated that a new conversion therapy law is their best shot at silencing dissent. They have realised that a law that prohibits people from suppressing trans identities is effectively self-ID by stealth, because anyone who disputes someone’s trans identity could find themselves having to answer to the police and the criminal courts.

If you read the details of these self-selecting surveys carefully, a different picture emerges. Many of the people reporting conversion therapy had merely prayed alone that God would change them. Is that what we want to criminalise? Do they expect people to turn themselves in to the police for praying for themselves? There is a great woolliness in the discussions about banning conversion therapy, which are emotive and often based on anecdote, but that does not provide a basis for legislation. Reference has been made to the national LGBT survey under the May Administration, but what needs to be noted is that that survey forgot to define what conversion therapy is, forgot to ask whether the experience was historic or recent and forgot to ask whether it took place in the UK or overseas. Legislating for something that we cannot define and cannot even prove exists is dangerous and cuts across the European convention rights in Articles 9, 10 and 11. It will inevitably mean trampling over the rights of innocent people.

Reference has been made to the Scottish Government, who have spent two years working on a 12-clause Bill for consultation. The public perception has been disastrous, with front-page banner headlines about parents of gender-distressed kids facing seven years in jail for not going along with their transition. That Government introduced a broad law that required the statutory equality body to produce guidance on the law. That guidance says that

“not affirming someone’s gender identity”

can count as conversion therapy and it is said to be illegal for parents to refuse to support their children receiving puberty blockers. Is this the sort of law that your Lordships want to impose on the population here? It is a law that takes children from their loving parents for helping them feel comfortable in their own skin and that rewrites mainstream religious belief. If noble Lords think, “That’s okay. We would never have a law like that here”, look at the law in Victoria, which is the template Stonewall legislation. There are no safeguards in the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the fines are unlimited.

There are two options, which can be summed up by the approaches of the Netherlands and Sweden. In both countries, legal assessments were carried out to see whether a law on conversion therapy was needed. In both cases, the assessment found that abusive practices were already illegal. Both said that sending a signal is not a good enough reason to legislate.

In the Netherlands, politicians have decided to press ahead anyway; they say they want a new law for situations where “no abuse takes place”—but at least they are honest. In Sweden, on the other hand, it looks as though the Government may do the sensible thing and drop the plan.

Finally, the Bill as drafted is a dangerous attack on civil liberties, on religious freedom and parental and wider human rights; it is socially divisive and unnecessary. Noble Lords must at the very least amend it and, preferably, reject it.

UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this report, which I think is reasonable, balanced and realistic. I also welcome the Government’s response. I speak as a veteran of the Brexit wars, having been chief of staff and special adviser to the Secretary of State in DExEU in 2017-18. One of our jobs was to meet heads of different Governments on a bilateral basis and explain Brexit from the UK perspective. It was also important for me to understand the European perspective, which for many was that the EU was a redemptive project to avoid the horrors of war.

On the issue of Horizon, which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has so ably enunciated over many months, I welcome the decision. But I have to say that I was disappointed by the somewhat churlish tone of some noble Lords when the decision was made, given that the issue was weaponised by the European Union for many months, notwithstanding the fact that it was laid down in the TCA. The tone was: how dare perfidious Albion have the temerity to seek a better deal and better value on behalf of British taxpayers?

The future relationship with the European Union should of course be seen through the prism of British national interests. Our relationship with the EU matters: in 2022, 42% of total UK exports went to the EU and 48% of imports came from the EU. We also have to give consideration to the wider health of the European economy and the UK’s role as a global soft power nation, militarily, diplomatically and economically. Brexit catastrophism has been somewhat overplayed. Even economists have conceded that, notwithstanding that goods trade has remained becalmed, service exports since 2021 have risen 3.6%—significantly higher than most G7 countries.

On the subject of being churlish, it would be churlish not to admit that the Windsor Framework has changed the playing field in respect of our relationship. I neither supported nor voted against it. I believed that it was an unacceptable interference in the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation and that the continued jurisdiction of a foreign legal entity was wrong in principle—but we have to see our future relationship in an unsentimental, realistic and pragmatic way. I believe there will be great opportunities in the reboot of the TCA in 2025-26; we will have a new Commission and new bilateral relationships. But we also must remember the thoughts of Martin Selmayr, the former chief of staff to Jean-Claude Juncker, who said at the time of Brexit that the EU’s strategic objectives were twofold: to make Brexit as difficult and fractious as possible to encourage others not to leave, and to prevent the UK, as a third country, obtaining a competitive economic advantage. This is in the context of a situation where the EU’s share of world trade by dollar denomination—which, 30 years ago, was 30%—will probably be around 15% by the end of this decade.

I welcome the positive aspects of the report and the encouragement to work closely with the European Union on defence, security, intelligence, technology and energy. I agree that we should utilise the existing institutional framework structures for more regular meetings—I think there is a consensus across the House on that. We should have more comprehensive engagement at a bilateral level, such as, for instance, the successful engagement we have had with Portugal, our oldest ally.

In the context of Ukraine, I support involvement with the Permanent Structured Cooperation—PESCO —project, which my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford referred to, provided that there is adequate oversight and transparency and proper accountability to this Parliament, as my right honourable friend in the other place David Jones raised in the European Scrutiny Committee. Of course, there will still be problems, including with rules of origin, electric vehicles, the coupling of fishing and energy policies, carbon pricing and people mobility. The UK adequacy decision for the exchange of data is bound to be a temporary issue, and we will have to come back to the issue of GDPR.

The EU lacks the bandwidth to consider the relitigation and renegotiation of the TCA. Germany has its own problems, and the wider EU has problems with demographics, climate change, mass migration and geopolitical issues involving Russia, China and the tilt to the Pacific. In addition, associate membership is pie in the sky. As my noble friend said, variable geometry models are 20 years old—they will not work. We do not want less accountability and democracy at the centre of the EU, and to pay in but not have our voice heard.

Finally, the report outlines the path to a mutually beneficial, respectful and pragmatic relationship between the EU and the UK, and, in that spirit, it is timely and very welcome.

Parliamentary Democracy in the United Kingdom

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this timely debate, notwithstanding the hyperbole of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It gives us the opportunity to put forward some practical alternatives.

We have much to learn from the United States. Woodrow Wilson said:

“Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of administration”.


We could take a leaf out of the book of the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the US House of Representatives, with its subpoena powers, substantial administrative heft and sector expertise. Speaker Bercow’s 2010 reforms in the other place made some much-needed progress on the Select Committee model that had existed since 1979, but it is still work in progress. A powerful robust ways and means committee would certainly add to the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight.

HM Treasury is too powerful and stifles innovation and independent thinking across departments. Surely the Northcote-Trevelyan paradigm from the mid-1800s is defunct, as we have seen in the recent contentious cases of Dominic Raab and Sue Gray. The case for a permanent Civil Service is receding and is less compelling than it has ever been. As a former special adviser, I would argue more generally that the bureaucratic impasse of write-rounds and public consultation is inimical to expeditious legislation and governance.

I believe in the bicameral model of Parliament, but this House also needs reform. We need to look at the size of the House and at those who do not regularly attend, and we need to look at the role of the Bishops in this place—notwithstanding the position of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, who is about to make his maiden speech.

Finally, the judiciary too cannot be immune from the imperative for openness and transparency. Self-selection and lack of transparency reduce accountability and public trust. We need confirmation hearings for senior departmental, executive and judicial appointments across both Houses, via a Joint Committee. This should be debated soon. In short, there is much work to do.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we seem to have gone out of sequence, so my noble friend Lord Hannan will now speak where my noble friend Lord Jackson would have spoken.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

My hon. Friend knows that I am very keen to promote cross-border working between Cumbria County Council, his own local authority, Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Borders Council. That is why I am a very big supporter of the so-called borderlands initiative to bring those councils together to try to secure economic development for the area, in which tourism would play a very important part.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

2. What progress has been made on the transfer of powers to the Scottish Government under the provisions of the Scotland Act 2016.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

We have made significant progress in transferring powers in the Scotland Act 2016 to the Scottish Parliament. A large number of provisions of the Act are already in force and we are continuing to work with the Scottish Government on the smooth transition of remaining powers.

[Mr Jackson]

The Scottish National party Government have failed to introduce a single piece of legislation in the past six months; the First Minister prefers grandstanding across Europe to block Brexit. Is it not time she used the powers devolved to her under the Act to start governing, rather than engaging in pointless photo opportunities?

[David Mundell]

I can update my hon. Friend. The Scottish Government have now brought forward one piece of legislation since the Scottish parliamentary elections in May. He may be interested to know that this Government currently have 19 pieces of proposed legislation before this Parliament. Of course I agree with him, and I think the majority of people in Scotland want the First Minister and the Scottish Government to get on with their day job of running Scotland and seeing to the devolved responsibilities, rather than constantly talking about independence.