Post Office: Executive Remuneration

Debate between Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My noble friend raises a very good point. I am aware of people’s frustration over the longevity of the processes, but Sir Wyn Williams’s review will be extremely important in informing us about what has happened. I agree with my noble friend’s point: long-term incentive plans should be as common in public sector bodies as they are in the private sector. I encourage that when looking at how we review governance in these sorts of organisations.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, a recent Post Office board meeting refers to a “toxic culture of disbelief” persisting at the top, including a continuing view that some postmasters and postmistresses were guilty as charged. Until the Post Office is taken out of the compensation process altogether, nothing will change. The Minister knows that one of the advisory board’s recommendations is to do exactly that. Have the Government made any recent assessment of the impact of the Post Office’s involvement on the delivery of the compensation scheme? Also, regarding the last question put by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the answer is yes—the Government do have a clawback mechanism.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that point. On the reference point at the end, I assume that we are awaiting the outcome of the inquiry, which is only right, so that we can ensure that the right things are done at the right time in the right way. I am also grateful for the prompt regarding the Government taking over the entire management of the compensation system. There is a great deal of demand for that—half the compensation processes are managed by the Government, and they have been effectively delivered. It is not for me to make such commitments, but it is clear that these discussions are going on within government to give people confidence that we are trying to do the right thing for those who have suffered so much.

Post Office Horizon: Compensation and Legislation

Debate between Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

Just to be clear on that as we go into the last few seconds, with regard to the quashing of the convictions, is it the case that the individual postmasters or postmistresses who received judicial sanction will not need to do anything for their convictions to be quashed, as the signing is purely to do with compensation?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

Absolutely. In conclusion, the Bill will immediately exonerate everyone whose conviction is being quashed. It is not a requirement to apply to have your conviction quashed; the Government will draw up their list. Detail has been raised about how people could appeal if they feel they should be on the list and are not, and there are clearly some details that need to be worked out about how that process will work. It will happen the moment the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. It is absolutely the right thing to do, it is our intention that it will happen before the end of the Summer Recess, and I very much look forward to all sides of the House supporting us in that move.

Paternity Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Monday 26th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I welcome this SI, as far as it goes. As he said, it is welcome, but this is not groundbreaking; we are talking about small moves in timescale, the length of leave, when it can be taken and the number of opportunities to take it. On the previous SI, we were all declaring our interests. My interest in paternity leave finished 21 years ago, when my youngest child passed his first birthday, but I declare my interest in a number of businesses that I advise, all of which treat their employees at a better and higher level than the legal minimum that this sets—and I shall come back to that.

The SI, Explanatory Memorandum, impact assessment and the Minister’s introduction are all very clear. As I said at the start, this is welcome, but I have a few questions to raise. If the Minister cannot answer them, I am more than happy for him to write to me and place a record of that letter in the Library with answers to some of the specifics—but we support this SI going through.

To work through the regulations, one thing that I was not clear about is the territorial application, which is England and Wales and Scotland. Why does it not also cover Northern Ireland? I was interested in that.

Let us look at flexibility. When I did take paternity leave—Jeez, 23 or 24 years ago—my employer at the time, GMB trade union, offered two weeks, which could be taken within the first year, but there was no period that you had to take. These regs will cover two one-week blocks. Twenty-four years ago, I was able to take the first week, then my wife and I decided that I would take every Friday for the next five weeks, because she had help and support earlier in the week, and Fridays were the time that I could take to spend time with our child and allow her some respite. That flexibility of having one day a week for the next five weeks was a different way of taking it, but that is not covered by the regulations. So, just to take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, a bit further, did the department look at widening that flexibility so that it could be taken as individual days?

I fully welcome it being within the first year, and the notice period is also more than welcome. The Minister noted that the first consultation was post the general election following a manifesto commitment in 2019. We are now in 2024, so I am wondering why it took so long to get here, because this is a positive move. The impact assessment, again, is spot on and covers all the right issues.

I am looking at flexibility for a reason. If we look at page 9 of the impact assessment, it looks at the take-up assumptions. Right now, we are on 74% for week one and 66% for week two. A large number of partners and fathers are not taking the second week, so this is about redressing that. However, the assumption is that the second week will move up to a central figure of 70%, which is an increase of only 4%. Even if we get to the high-end assumption of 74%, it is an increase of only 8%. Any increase is welcome, but is there more that the department can do to help general uptake on the first week? With these changes, there is no expectation that week one uptake would increase. Is there more that we could do on advertising and marketing to show and share the benefits of this? Looking at the finances of it, they are relatively small.

The Minister touched on the neonatal issue as well. I have a genuine question for information. Obviously, when there is a notice period, it is for four weeks. If you have a premature birth, or it is an adoption and things move quicker, that four-week period may be too much. The Minister touched on this but I did not quite get the detail of it. If there is a premature birth, what are the rules in terms of the partner or father being able to move quickly in order to take time off? I presume that many premature births end up in hospital but I am sure that support from the partner or father would be very willing. Can the Minister say anything on that?

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, touched on the gig economy so there is no need for me to repeat what he said.

With that, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, we will come back to the manifesto in due course, but now is not the time to set out what our policy would be for the next election. We on these Benches support these regulations.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for making the point about the declaration of interests. I hope that, for once, I also have no interests to declare in a debate and no need to apologise after the event for not declaring them—but who knows? What is important is that the nation will benefit, and we may too; that is a good thing. I will answer some of the questions asked but am happy to follow up with answers to some of the more specific questions in writing.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made some important points about celebrating and congratulating businesses that go beyond the statutory minimum. We should bear this in mind. I do not have the statistics on how businesses function in terms of percentages and performance but, to be honest, all the businesses that I have ever worked around or been involved with have always operated a different process for paternity leave, maternity leave and so on. That is a great thing; we should not forget it. These are minimum standards. It is important that I emphasise that. This should not be “the” standard, as it were; we hope for and expect companies—indeed, all bodies—to try to go beyond it. As the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, rightly said—28 years ago, was it?

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

Twenty-four.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

Yes—24 years ago, the noble Lord had a greater degree of flexibility then than these minimum standards imply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for raising that.

I also thank the noble Lord for making a point about the self-employed. Mothers are eligible for maternity leave as self-employed persons but self-employed fathers are not eligible for paternity leave. I have not covered this area in my ministerial work but I would be comfortable going back to my colleagues and asking them to scrutinise the opportunities there further. Bearing in mind that self-employed people—again, I have been self-employed to some extent—have very different working patterns and living patterns, we should not necessarily conflate the two, but it is absolutely right to review and assess how we as a society support families and carers of babies and children.

The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, made a number of important points. The first related to Northern Ireland. This area of legislation is devolved to Northern Ireland. We assume that it will follow the legislative work we are doing today—we cannot guarantee that but it is the assumption; there is some shaking of heads and nodding behind me—but, clearly, we believe that these minimum standards should be applied, certainly across Great Britain.

The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, asked whether we looked at widening flexibility. I do not have the answer to that because I was not engaged in the preparation of this legislation, but I will come back to him, if that is acceptable. All these measures are always taken in the light of balancing our desire to create the sort of society that we want with the need for economic growth and bearing in mind how businesses function. The issue with all these pieces of legislation and regulations is that they apply across the board to all businesses, and some businesses, particularly very small ones, can often find compliance difficult. They might not have the flexibility over the professional employee basis that many noble Lords here may be more used to, so I have some sympathy with the need to be quite clear about ensuring that these are minimum rather than general standards and that they can be operated by all companies across the economy.

I noted the noble Lord’s last point: 74% take-up of week 1, and 64%—or low 60s—take-up of week 2. That is precisely why we are making these changes: to encourage fathers to take that second week. We believe that additional flexibility will allow that.

The noble Lord asked about neonatal care regulations. I believe they are to come into play on 6 April, and they are also entitlements from day 1. If that is not the case, I will let him know. As far as I understand it, they operate slightly differently from paternity leave, but I am happy to clarify exactly what those new entitlements will be. Again, they will be a very important, welcome relief for many parents in an extremely difficult situation.

With that, I am grateful to noble Lords for their input in this valuable and important debate. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Committee stage
Thursday 14th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for speaking to their amendments. I will touch on my amendment in this group. The detail the noble Lord has gone into raises a number of questions, and the detailed answers he seeks will cover all the amendments in this group.

My amendment is very straightforward; we have further groups later on seeking reviews of the negotiation. I understand the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about this being within one year, but we are in a very new situation with the CPTPP. Learning lessons quickly, both positive and negative ones, is crucial to our making correct decisions in future on FTAs and other negotiations.

Amendment 24 seeks a review within one year of the day on which the Act is passed. The Secretary of State must publish both

“a review of the lessons learned from the negotiation of the CPTPP Chapter on intellectual property”—

as we have heard, there are still a large number of questions outstanding there—

“and … an assessment of how this experience might inform negotiations of future free trade agreements”.

It is very straightforward.

Like others who have spoken before me, I have had a number of representations from UK Music and the Alliance for Intellectual Property. I seek clarification from the Minister of one of the points made by UK Music. There is a concern that the CPTPP parties are allowed to opt out of some of the IP provisions—for example, not recognising protection for the use of recorded music in broadcasting and public performance, which was one of the issues touched on earlier. The AfIP’s point was that

“the rush to join CPTPP may result in the embrace of IP”—

intellectual property—

“standards that are significantly weaker than those present in UK law”,

and thus cause growth issues.

I turn to geographical indicators, which may well come up in some of the later amendments and was touched on during our first day in Committee. There is a specific issue concerning the UK-Japan deal, which was rolled over. Geographical indication brand protection was promised in the UK-Japan agreement but was never delivered on. When the agreement was announced in October 2020, the then Trade Secretary, Liz Truss, promised that 77 specialist UK food and drink products would be guaranteed protected geographical indication status, alongside the seven that were then carried over from the previous EU-Japan trade deal. The former Department for International Trade said that the protections would be in place by May 2021 for all 77 new products. I will not list them all, although I am more than happy to. They included some iconic brands: Scottish beef, the Cornish pasty, Welsh lamb and Wensleydale cheese, to name but a few.

The DIT also boasted that, thanks to Liz Truss’s agreement, the UK would benefit from a fast-track process for securing brand protection that would not have been possible under the EU-Japan deal. It said that:

“The EU must negotiate each new GI individually on a case-by-case basis.”


The EU has added an extra 84 products to the protected list since October 2020, including 28 fairly recently, and the number of EU GIs with Japan now stands at 291, while the UK is still stuck with only seven protected products, which we inherited from the EU-Japan deal. Given this, can UK producers of geographically identified products be confident in the measures in the CPTPP, and is there any danger of the same occurring now with British food and drink products, putting them more at risk? Finally, will the Government revisit the UK-Japan agreement and deliver on those originally promised protections?

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for returning to this important discussion of the various ways in which they are looking to improve our CPTPP Bill. I hope I can give them some good answers, illustrating my belief that we have a very good deal, the integrity of which we should try to retain as much as possible.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who is an expert on many things, said that he had yet to come across an expert who could clearly explain artists’ and performers’ broadcast rights. I am well aware of this, as are noble Lords. I will try to do so today but, given that no one has so far managed to do so convincingly, I hope noble Lords will allow me to write giving further clarification and useful examples and anecdotes. It is certainly a complex point.

The CPTPP brings to bear on the United Kingdom an additional series of obligations regarding performers’ rights. Currently, if you are a performer of, let us say, British nationality, and/or your performance is in the United Kingdom, you are entitled to the performance rights. The CPTPP looks at performances and rights in a slightly different fashion. In the instance of a performance taking place in a non-CPTPP country—which is where the controversy of this issue has arisen—it could qualify for artists’ performance rights payments if it was released or produced in a CPTPP country or if there was another necessary association with a CPTPP country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, we are now on to the fourth group so we are getting there. We have been through the bulk of the detailed amendments, so these should be relatively straightforward. There are four amendments in this group, all in my name, so I will work through them. They all seek to have assessments of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP after two years. If we come back to these on Report, we will look to change that timing to being from accession rather than from the Act being passed, which is eminently sensible. As the Minister has said, a review will take place on the four areas I have highlighted—local business, manufacturing, the job market and public services. I am sure that he will be more than happy to accept into it.

To go into a little detail within those four areas, we are concerned that the CPTPP could open up public procurement markets, restricting public authorities’ ability to support local businesses that recognise trade unions or pay the living wage, so there is a concern regarding the criteria provisions of the CPTPP and the fact that in some cases they are narrower than the UK procurement laws and could encourage more contracts to be based solely on lower prices rather than quality and access to integrity of service provision. On local businesses, we seek clarification from the Minister that this is not the case.

I turn to the manufacturing sector, where again we have concerns that the CPTPP could pose threats to jobs as it would make it easier, to take an example, for Vietnam to export goods to the UK that could include cheap Chinese steel or other manufactured goods such as tyres, cement and glass deliberately routed through Vietnam to avoid remedies and tariffs. The Trades Union Congress is concerned that this could increase the rate of trade dumping in the UK manufacturing sectors, putting thousands of jobs in steel and related supply chains at risk.

In 2017 the European Commission found that China had been shipping steel from Vietnam to evade tariffs, which led to dumping in the UK steel sector. The risk of increased dumping from Vietnam, as well as other countries, is compounded by the fact that the UK trade remedy system is currently too weak to be effective. The TUC is part of the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance with the Unite, GMB and Community trade unions as well as a number of manufacturing employers’ associations. They are calling for stronger measures to deal with dumping from countries such as China and Vietnam in legislation and the removal of the public interest and economic interest tests, which prevent effective trade remedies being applied.

I turn to the job market. Following conversations with the TUC, I know there are concerns that the CPTPP may lead to job losses in some sectors due to increased imports from CPTPP countries. Of course there will be benefits from increased trade, but how do we ensure that important sectors of UK manufacturing are protected? I seek some reassurance from the Minister on that.

I turn to the public sector. CPTPP accession could also expose public services to further privatisation as it takes the negative list approach to service listings. This means that any services not explicitly exempted will be opened up to further privatisation. In the past, the Government have not adequately excluded services in trade deals to offer that protection. Meanwhile, the Government’s ability to exempt public services adequately in the CPTPP would be severely restricted as the UK would be joining the existing agreement with the 11, rather than at the start. This weakens and reduces our power to alter it. I beg to move Amendment 19.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful, as always, for the debate we have had around these important points. I hope noble Lords will agree that I have covered in previous groups the importance of reviewing these free trade agreements and how they impact our economy. As I say, I passionately believe that they will be enormously positive. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, may be overestimating the threats in areas such as privatisation, steel dumping and so on. We have strong protections from the TRA protecting our economy in areas such as steel. This free trade agreement does not affect our ability to control that area of our economy.

I am afraid that I cannot see how this FTA would lead to increased levels of privatisation. We have been very careful about protecting key areas of our economy. To some extent, my job as Investment Minister is to encourage flows of capital into the UK, and we were asked earlier for impact assessments around that. I would be comfortable with seeing flows of capital from CPTPP member countries into the UK: we are aligned with them, and they are our allies—we want to do more trade with them—but I do not think it will lead to the negative consequences to which the noble Lord alluded. However, I am comfortable to have further discussions. As I said earlier, we should look carefully in these debates at the sorts of areas that we wish to review to make sure that the impacts around FTAs are properly understood, but I would be very reluctant to have them codified in amendments to this Bill, for obvious reasons.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response. As he outlined earlier, there will be an opportunity to review the implementation of the CPTPP in two years. The point of these probing amendments was just to put on record the importance of the sectors in these specific areas. He has put in Hansard, in his own words, that there will be no derogations in those areas, and I look forward to holding him to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 19.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this important series of amendments and the discussion that we have been able to have around them. Since this relates to investor-state dispute settlements and I have investments in CPTPP countries, I declare that and direct all noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests—although I do not believe that I have any specific conflict and I am always happy to answer questions on any of those points.

For me, ISDSs are a very important element of protecting our businesses’ investments overseas. I spend a lot of my time talking to companies that make significant investments in many countries and, where they do not feel that they have protections, it creates a far higher level of work for the Government in trying to support them when they have disputes and clearly increases the hurdles for the necessary rate of return. So, from our point of view, having mechanisms where investors feel protected when investing into the UK economy by the consistency of the rule of law and the application of that law is very important. We are very comfortable with signing up to investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.

The question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on whether the FTA or signing up through the CPTPP is linked to ISDS, is perfectly reasonable. My view is that it would not make any difference. I am very happy to confirm that in writing. You would not pursue an ISDS case according to a specific route: from the investment point of view, the country either has that relationship or does not.

To the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord McNicol, I say that an important element of our system is that we have protections for our businesses when they invest internationally and that international businesses investing in the UK can have a high degree of confidence. It does not, at any point, derogate or hinder our right to regulate in the public interest, including in areas such as the environment and labour standards. In fact, this right to regulate is recognised in international law, and CPTPP expressly preserves states’ rights to regulate proportionately, fairly and in the public interest.

The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, is right to say that we have received a claim from investors relating to an ISDS. I do not think that that came from a CPTPP country, and it was in conjunction with another country. That is a fact, but not one that is necessarily in contradiction with the point that we have never singularly, acting on our own basis, had a successful claim made against us. That is important. We have nothing to fear without ISDSs, and I reaffirm that our flexibility to enact the legislation and frameworks that we want to run our country is not impeded if we stick to the rule of law and understand and respect the rights of investors putting their money in the United Kingdom.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. The bit I am struggling with is the contradiction, and I do not think that he has answered that yet: we signed side-letters excluding ISDS with New Zealand and Australia, yet the Minister says how important they are. How does he balance these positions?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. We did accede, in terms of their negotiating priorities, to do that. We have long-lasting relationships with Australia and New Zealand, and we are comfortable allowing that to be the case as part of the negotiating process. The point is whether we are willing to sign up for them, and my point to noble Lords is that we are. Clearly, we need to make sure these processes are properly followed and that they suit us into the future—but currently, today, we are very comfortable signing up for them. I think it gives us, and our businesses, benefit, and creates an overall higher level of investment confidence within CPTPP countries, and within the UK.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Davies for his detailed explanation of this. It may well be something we come back to on Report.

I thank the Minister for answering the question regarding the side-letters, who was pushing, and how they came to fruition. I think that was important. The Minister’s position is that this is about protecting our companies. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is a bit more detailed, but my Amendment 26 is simply calling for a review of the financial risks. I think that works well with the Minister’s position, so at this point I withdraw my amendment, but I am well come back to this on Report.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Committee stage
Thursday 7th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, there is very little to add to the detailed probing question—and answers—from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a constant pleasure to debate with such intellectual firepowers as the noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. It is a joy to learn new things, every day, about the opportunities and benefits of free trade, particularly the CPTPP treaty itself.

However, in this instance, the Government are not keen to accept the amendment, for the simple reason that this strikes me as an absolutely eminent clarification of the procurement relationship between a UK procurer covered by the CPTPP legislation and the international procurer who would not be covered by it. It clarifies the point that, if we are in a minority funding position, we have to be in a majority funding position in order to qualify under our own procurement legislation.

Therefore, this does something very sensible: it confirms that point. I am happy to clarify this further with the noble Lord outside this room, but it would be difficult for procuring agents in the UK who were not in control of the funding process to conform to the CPTPP procurement funding processes or our own national processes. That is why this is clarified. Otherwise, if you have a minority position, you do not have control over it—if you are putting in only a small amount of capital, it makes sense for the international body to make the procurement decisions.

Maybe I have missed something, but this strikes me as quite straightforward. I felt that, of all the amendments placed today, what we were doing here seemed to make things easier and clearer, rather than more opaque.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. The Trade Marks Act 1994 at no point uses the phrase “established by use”. However, it specifically makes provision for registered trademarks, whereas—this was the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley; he may be wrong and looking for clarification from the Minister—if it is established by use then it would presumably be unregistered, as he said. Therefore, would it not be subject to common law through the concept known as “passing off”? With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

As always, I am grateful to noble Lords for their points. Clearly, it is easy to confuse trademarks and geographical indications. With geographical indications, there is a principle of established use, whereas with trademarks, something is either trademarked or it is not. That is why we are comfortable with the language as it sits.

There is no reference in the Trade Marks Act 1994 to the concept of “established by use”, because the concept refers to unregistered trademarks, whereas the Trade Marks Act is concerned principally with protections conferred on registered marks. However, “established by use” has meaning under the law relating to geographical indications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am very happy to have conversations about this. Clearly, these FTAs make it difficult, if we are to comply with them, to have various and significant amendments to them. However, I am reassured by my officials that, in making significant changes to “qualifying countries”, we would make sure that there was an appropriate level of consultation. I am very sensitive about making great promises from the Dispatch Box because I always find myself getting into trouble later, but I hope that—

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

No, I think it is good. Carry on.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, would like me to make off-the-cuff commitments on behalf of the Government. It would be only logical to assume that there would be a degree of consultation in the same way that we are effecting one in this instance but, since I cannot give a firm commitment, I am very comfortable to come back to my noble friend between now and Report.

Northern Ireland Investment Summit

Debate between Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her compliments. The effort around the Northern Ireland Investment Summit was huge, and everyone played their part. I am pleased to say all parties also played their part, including Joe Kennedy III in his leadership as President Biden’s envoy to Northern Ireland. I will certainly review the concept with the Northern Ireland Office around the matter the noble Baroness mentioned, but I believe that our Secretary of State is a phenomenal advocate for Northern Ireland and a significant ambassador in encouraging investment, as is my noble friend Lord Caine, who spends much of his time travelling around the world getting more money into Northern Ireland, so that everyone can prosper.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the messages that came out of the Northern Ireland Investment Summit was the need for political stability to encourage much needed investment, with Joe Biden even saying that US firms would be willing to pump billions of dollars into the Northern Ireland economy if there was more political stability. Recently, the Northern Ireland Secretary said talks to restore a functioning Executive in Northern Ireland were in their final phase. Will the Government provide an update on these negotiations?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am not sure whether the Government provide an ongoing commentary for such sensitive, but very important, negotiations. However, for me it is cause for great optimism that, a few weeks ago, Joe Kennedy III led a delegation, as a follow-up to the Northern Ireland Investment Summit, where a number of United States companies announced specific investments. Some 70 companies and business leaders accompanied him, so the appetite is there regardless. We totally push for a resolution to the formation of the Executive because we know that there is more to come.

UK-India Free Trade Deal

Debate between Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lord, I welcome the Minister to your Lordships’ House and wish him all the best for his maiden speech tomorrow. I know he will agree that achieving a free trade agreement with India is vital for the opportunities it presents— financial opportunities to increase our GDP, create new markets and achieve key areas of shared interest, but also opportunities to raise a number of vital issues where the Indian Government fall short, including on human rights and workers’ rights, the environment, climate and other geopolitical issues.

In January, the Government promised that talks towards the deal would be completed by Diwali, which Hindus across the world are celebrating this week. What makes the Government’s failings on this FTA all the worse and significant is that that deadline was self-imposed, but we all knew it would fail. I challenge the Minister: can he therefore outline to your Lordships’ House what plans his Government are making to get the talks back on track?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for that follow-up question, and thank him very much for his kindness earlier, as well. He promised to be as kind as possible during this debate, so I thank him for that.

Actually, the Government never promised to conclude these talks by Diwali. We promised to have the majority of the talks concluded by the end of October, which we have: 16 chapters, the majority, are already concluded. This trade deal is actually on track. For me, it is one of the most exciting opportunities this country has had in generations. If we think about what India has to offer us, it is phenomenal. I was in India last week, and I pay tribute to our staff on the ground there, who are doing a huge amount of work to ensure our cordial relations with a country that will, in my view, become one of our greatest partners. I have celebrated Diwali with our high commission office in Mumbai.

Negotiations are ongoing and have been going on today. We have had five formal negotiations so far, I think; we are expecting a sixth in the next month or so. If we expect progression of that, we will be looking forward to substantial progress over the coming months.