Net Migration

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There have been several looks at the shortage occupation list. In fact, there does not tend to be a terribly big regional variation between the needs of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales: the list is pretty similar across the nations. Of course, someone taking up a job in Scotland through a regional shortage occupation list could then just migrate further south if such a system were introduced.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, what conclusion do the Government draw from the fact that my home city of Cambridge is one of the places in the country with the highest level of inward migration and the city with the highest level of employment in Europe?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As my noble friend will agree, Cambridge is a city with a huge number of people doing research and innovation, and with the best university in the country, I would say—apart from Oxford; I do not want to irritate anyone from Oxford. That is why Cambridge attracts such inward migration within the UK.

Trade Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that this is a very good amendment and I will come to the substance of it in a second. I just want to make two points by way of introduction. First, here we are at the beginning of February—a new week and a new month—and we are still in an absolutely ludicrous position, presenting an almost unbelievable picture to the world of a country with a Government doing their best to damage their own economy. Every day we have new evidence of this. Today we had the worrying story from Nissan. Many of us who have focused on the mess the Government are in could speak on the subject for hours.

There is another example from the last few days. We say that when we leave the European Union we want to sign trade agreements with those countries which currently have trade agreements with the EU. One of those countries is Japan. Japan has just signed a trade agreement with the EU. At the very best, I suppose, if the Japanese were to give us exactly the same terms—which is unlikely because our bargaining power vis-à-vis Japan is nothing like the power that the EU has—it would take a minimum of five years, and probably nearer 10, to conclude this deal. So the Government are saying that we are walking away from a trade agreement in order to spend a vast amount of time and money and suffer a lot of uncertainty before perhaps, in many years’ time, finally reaching another trade agreement that may not be as good as the one we now have. I put it to the Government: what kind of reason or logic is that? What a way to run a state. What a way to look after not only this generation but future generations of British people and make sure that they have a viable economy on which they can actually base a reasonable standard of living and a reasonable level of public services.

The Government are already under attack in this place, quite rightly, for their delivery of public services. We had a very interesting series of Questions earlier about the health service. The Government are undermining the future ability of the British economy to deliver the wealth we need to maintain our public services at acceptable international levels. This is quite apart from the impact of their policies on individual wealth and prospects for individuals who want to travel or study abroad or benefit from all the other freedoms we will be giving up. It is a very serious matter. The muddle the Government are in about the damage that is being done makes the whole picture even more disgraceful—that is the only word I can use.

I think my noble friend’s amendment is excellent. I agree with everything he said when he introduced it—and that noble Lords on both sides of the House said—about the importance of services. We all know that they are 80% of the British economy. But I have one question. Why has he not put goods in there as well? It seems to me that exactly the same principles apply to goods. I just looked at the amendment, and if you were to add the words “goods” wherever “services” are mentioned, you would not produce any particular anomalies or logical or linguistic problems. I do not know why goods have been left out of this particular picture. As I said, exactly the same principles apply. We want there to be no new barriers—that sums up everything. “Barriers” includes tariffs, quotas and non-tariff barriers, so the ground would be covered quite well by doing that.

My noble friend rather implied that he was putting forward this amendment in order to have a debate on an important subject—which is a very worthy thing to do in this place. Perhaps I have that wrong, but it sounded as though that was what he had in mind, and we are of course having that debate at the moment. However, it seems to me that it would be even better if we got this proposed new clause on to the statute book. We would be doing a very good day’s work for the country if we could manage to do that. Therefore, I ask my noble friend why he came to his decision. I am sure that there must be a very good reason, which perhaps I am being foolish in not anticipating, but I do not understand why we do not include goods.

These debates are becoming extremely unreal. One likes to think that one’s service in Parliament, whether in the Commons or in the Lords, is based on being clear in one’s mind and discussing and working out with colleagues what is the best policy for this country. But we have a Government who are not pursuing the objective of the best policy for this country. We have a Government who are destroying British industry and commerce where they can—so it is a very unreal situation. I do not know how much longer this country can go on in the hands of people who take that attitude when they have in their charge the very considerable, and in my view very important, responsibility of governing the United Kingdom to the benefit of our citizens both of today and of tomorrow.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, in following the noble Lord’s remarks, perhaps I may say that the unreality of debates in Committee on this Bill will be exacerbated if we not only have amendments that, quite properly, raise relevant issues that are not presently included in the Bill but we then use them as the basis for a wide-ranging debate on every occasion. Let us not do that. On occasion, we in this House look broadly at what the resolution to our current impasse might be, but we also have a responsibility to use our time well on this Bill to try to ensure that it is effective legislation, because we might need it.

In that context, there is a very simple reason why trade in services is not in the Bill: the General Agreement on Trade in Services is multilateral, not plurilateral, so there is no need to legislate for this as it is something we are a party to only by virtue of our membership of the European Union. That is why the government procurement agreement has got into the legislation. If that were true for the General Agreement on Trade in Services, that would have to be included as well, but it is not; every member of the WTO is a member of the GATS.

However, the question is: do we want to legislate to mandate the Government in the negotiation on a future free trade agreement to seek to provide for a continuing and complete reproduction of our current relationship with the European Union, or at least to the extent that the amendment asks for that? As far as I can see, it asks for it up to mode 3—it does not include mode 4 arrangements, which allow for natural persons to be present in other member states—thus excluding the free movement of individuals for the purpose of the delivery of services in other member states. Therefore, it is not a continuity amendment, or at least it cannot be presented as such.

From the point of view of Ministers, broadly speaking at the moment it is important for us to understand to what extent free trade agreements that might be reproduced by way of continuity agreements in the event of a no-deal exit might lead to the perverse situation whereby we have greater service sector access to third countries than we do to the European Union, which would mean considerable dislocation for service industries in this country.

Finally, much as I wish that we were staying in the European Union and continue to argue that we should be in a customs union with a degree of regulatory alignment—we will come on to that briefly later—I certainly would not go as far as the amendment implies, which is that effectively we should be rule-takers on services with the European Union. That could be a very unhappy place for us to be, given that services make up 80% of our economy, as has been said. The fact that we are in a customs union for goods will therefore not preclude us from engaging extensively in discussions on trade in services with third countries, which is where much of the action may well be in future trade negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

61: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Free Zones
(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act the Treasury must launch a consultation on proposals for the establishment in the United Kingdom of Free Zones, as defined by the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.(2) The Treasury must lay a report of the consultation under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament within six months of its launch.(3) The report under subsection (2) must include—(a) proposals for the Free Zones to be established, and(b) an account of the extent to which each proposed Free Zone would allow UK manufacturers to secure an integrated supply and value-added production.(4) Within six months of the report under subsection (2) being laid, a Minister of the Crown must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for the establishment of Free Zones as set out in the report under subsection (2). (5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.”

[Lord Lansley]

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of free zones. I thought I was likely to end up moving this amendment at about 10 pm last Wednesday, so it is a pleasure to have it on in prime time but, recognising the value of this time, I will be as brief as I can.

The point about this amendment is that free zones were legislated for way back in 1979. Indeed, they featured, not least during the 1980s, as part of a broader industrial strategy. I do not propose today to debate the merits or otherwise of free zones, because there are arguments that cut both ways. They are, by their nature, a distortion: they distort the customs and regulatory framework in favour of specific geographical locations. None the less, there can be significant benefits associated with that happening in circumstances where one needs to advantage certain geographical areas. That is why, for example, they have been used in the past, and are used widely around the world, in relation to some more disadvantaged economic areas, and specifically in relation to ports of entry—not just seaports but airports and the like. The reasoning there is that the ports of entry to an economy are often in competition not so much with other parts of the geography of that country as with other ports in neighbouring areas.

The European Union has a general disinclination towards free zones because the single market effectively creates one single customs territory. Arguing against myself, if we were to be in a single customs territory with the European Union, the question of free zones would probably not arise at all—but if we are not to be, it ought to arise. Under these circumstances, it would be good to legislate in the Bill to encourage Her Majesty’s Treasury to bring forward both a consultation allowing the merits of free zone designation and its use in this country to be debated, and proposals to Parliament about how that designation might be deployed.

There are ports that are interested in this, and the Treasury’s approach—that it is happy to consider free zone designation under the 1979 legislation—is understandable. But it is for the ports themselves to decide whether they wish to do this. I understand some ports may wish to; Teesport and Humberside are interested, and Associated British Ports is interested. If we leave the European Union and do not form part of a customs territory with it, they may well bring forward proposals. In the interests of the legislative approach to this, we should have something that encourages that to happen as quickly as possible in an ordered way. That is why the deadlines in the amendment are swift: to initiate a consultation within three months, and to report on that consultation within six months. In quite short order after exit day, we in this country could see to what extent our ports would need and benefit from free zone designation to enable them to compete more effectively with other ports—not least those on the other side of the North Sea or the English Channel.

That is the reason we should think about this. Those bringing their goods to Europe have never previously had to think about customs or other formalities, or the imposition of duty on those goods if they are brought to the United Kingdom and then re-exported elsewhere in Europe. Unfortunately, they may have to think about that.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As he rightly says, free ports are distortionary by definition. If you create a free port close to another port, one will survive and the other will probably disappear altogether. Does he think his Government would be tempted by the thought that they could say, “If we have a local MP who votes for us and supports this Government, we will make the port free; but if we have an MP who dares to vote against us, we will make the port unfree and ruin it”?

[Lord Lansley]

The noble Lord will observe that the amendment seeks a consultation on the part of the Treasury, and that consultation would undoubtedly enable these issues to be explored on an even-handed basis. In the scenario I was describing, any port would be free to come forward and seek designation. It is not something that would be handed out on the basis of any partiality; rather, it would be done by examining the cases made by those ports. The point is that whereas in the past we may have concluded that there was no basis for introducing such a distortion into our economic activity, if and when UK ports are principally having to compete in international trade with other European ports, we may conclude that it is not a distortion to trade inside the United Kingdom. Actually, it is an aid to competitiveness for the United Kingdom in relation to ports elsewhere in Europe. I beg to move.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for moving this amendment. He has managed to get on to prime time in this territory. I once represented a seat on Teesside, which is very close to my heart. The idea has been advocated by the excellent mayor there, Ben Houchen, and by some of the local MPs, such as Simon Clarke and Rishi Sunak.

To reassure my noble friend, the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979—CEMA—allows for the designation of free zones, as he mentioned. The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act, which the Government passed through your Lordships’ House last September, allows HMRC to make regulations regarding goods kept in a free zone. Under CEMA, operators are free to apply to become a free zone. The Government are open to any ideas that might deliver economic advantages for the UK and will continue to examine the role that free zones may play as part of this. Assuming that we will have an independent trade policy, we will be able to have these types of examinations and innovations.

Existing customs facilitations in the UK offer the same benefits as free zones, but are not geographically limited and can be accessed anywhere across the country, thereby potentially having more widespread benefits for the UK as a whole. For example, a manufacturer could import materials for its products and store them in a customs warehouse anywhere else in the country, without duties being paid on them. The manufacturer or its supply chain could then use those materials in its manufacturing process under inward processing relief and could export the finished goods without any UK customs duty ever having to be paid. Those existing facilitations, therefore, avoid the distortions to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred, which can arise from free zones where a manufacturer or its supply chain would be required to locate on the same site to benefit.

The UK’s ability to formulate a free zone that diverges from the Union customs code will depend on the future relationship with the European Union. The Government have also been clear that it is a commercial decision for operators to make on whether they want to apply for designation of an area as a free zone, and we will review any applications made. I am not able to be more helpful than that to my noble friend at this point, much as I may wish to be.

[Lord Lansley]

Since there is no recent substantial experience of free zones, does my noble friend not think it would be helpful—if we arrive at the point where we exit the Union customs code—for the Government at least to initiate a consultation to look at the criteria that would be applied in examining the designation of free-zone status?

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend will be aware that “consultation” has a specific meaning now in legal terms, which is quite an onerous responsibility of the process. We could seek ways to discuss—perhaps with BEIS as part of the industrial strategy—or to engage with others who are interested. He mentioned Humberside, Teesside and others, and I think we could look at ways in which that could be done. I am very happy to take that thought back to the Treasury and write to him further on that.

[Lord Lansley]

Once again, I am grateful to my noble friend and that is a very welcome comment. I look forward to further discussion about that but, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 61 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Secondly, what do the Government intend with this Bill? Before we proceed to Report, we need clarity. On that basis, I beg to move my amendment.

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, I just want to say a word on this. I will not add much, because the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, has illustrated the nature of the issues here very well. I would just emphasise that, if the Government are looking to vary Clause 6 as it came from the other place, it is important for them to do so while recognising the importance of seeking to maintain and maximise our co-operation and partnership on medicines and clinical matters across Europe. There are issues such as European reference networks for rare diseases, which are valuable mechanisms for co-operation; there is work together on clinical trials and the implementation of the clinical trials directive.

As far as the European Medicines Agency is concerned, none of us realistically expects that, if we leave the European Union, we will have mutual recognition of authorisations between the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in this country on the one hand and the EU on the other. Even if we were to offer to recognise European Medicines Agency authorisations in this country, I do not think that will be offered, because the European Union will not contemplate a third country providing what it regards as the equivalent of its own authorisations with its own control of data and jurisdiction under the European Court of Justice. That is not going to happen.

However, from early on in the negotiations it was clear that we should aim, if possible, for the scientific evaluations presently carried out by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, prior to the authorisation process, to continue to be done by the MHRA. That is not presently anticipated by the European Medicines Agency, and that is one of the reasons why the Dutch, Germans, French and others are gearing up their medicines regulatory authorities to do much more of this work. They recognise that—to give perhaps the maximum illustration—over 40% of the work on the authorisation of medical devices across Europe is done by the MHRA, and an even higher percentage for the more complex and significant medical devices. It is far from the case that this can be readily adopted and delivered in other EU member states. It is in their interests and ours to continue to work together—something like 80% of the total work is in the scientific evaluation rather than in the subsequent authorisation process.

I know Ministers are continuing to think about how we can achieve this level of co-operation, and I hope that, in that spirit, even if Clause 6 does not end up providing this mandatory structure for the negotiations, Ministers will be forthcoming none the less about how we might make progress in the direction that the noble Lord in his amendment is aiming for.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Lansley, who has paved the way quite well for some of the remarks I will make on this issue. This amendment, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raises an important issue which the Government are committed to addressing, and that is our future relationship with the European Medicines Agency.

Medicines regulation is inextricably linked to the UK’s fantastic life sciences sector. The UK has one of the most productive health and life sciences sectors in the world. The sector is critical to the UK’s health and economy, contributing over £70 billion a year and 240,000 jobs across the country.

We have been clear since the referendum result that our overarching aim for medicines and medical device regulation is underpinned by three clear principles: first, that patients should not be disadvantaged; secondly, that innovators should be able to get products to the UK market as quickly and simply as possible; and, thirdly, that the UK should continue to play a leading role in promoting public health. This is why the Government, in their White Paper The Future Relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, set out their aim to secure active participation in the EMA. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, used the word “imperative”, and that is very much noted on this side.

However, the clause binds our hands ahead of negotiations with the EU on our future relationship. We have always been clear that continuing to share our skills and expertise is the best outcome for UK and EU patients. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, cited part of the political declaration; that declaration underlines the UK and EU’s mutual commitment to working together in the future on medicines regulation, and to negotiating the UK’s ongoing co-operation with the EMA. That particular area was raised by my noble friend Lord Lansley, but I will go slightly further, because the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, picked up on the word “co-operation”. I say again that we want to retain a close working partnership with the EU to ensure that patients continue to have timely access to safe medicines and medical devices. The political declaration explicitly makes allowance for a spectrum of outcomes and commits both the UK and the EU to exploring the UK’s relationship with the EMA.

The Government, as I said earlier, set out their ambitions for the future relationship in the July White Paper, making it clear, again, that we are seeking participation in the EMA. I can provide the Committee with some additional detail, however, some of which has been alluded to by my noble friend Lord Lansley. The UK is seeking an agreement that will allow the UK regulator to be able to conduct technical work, including acting as a “leading authority” for the assessment of medicines, and participating in other activities, such as ongoing safety monitoring and the incoming clinical trials framework.

I hope these brief comments provide enough reassurance to the Committee. Given that continued EMA participation is already a negotiating objective of ours, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary. The Government are already committed to ensuring that, after we leave the EU, UK patients can access new medicines at the same rate as they do now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, following the excellent speeches we have just listened to, beginning with my noble friend Lord Stevenson, I support this group of amendments and appeal to the Minister seriously to consider reversing the ERG amendments, not just for the detail and well-founded points and reasons that have already been made, but because the Government did not choose to accept them. They were foisted upon them, because of the arithmetic and politics of the situation, and wanting bigger fish to fry. As a result, we have a defective Bill, even by the Government’s own objectives. I ask the Minister seriously to consider on Report, rather than facing a possible vote and even defeat given the cross-party support that exists, getting the Bill back to where it was before the ERG plundered it.

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, what connects this group of amendments is that they are European Research Group’s amendments in the Commons that were accepted by the Government. I do not think they should be treated by my noble friends on the Front Bench as if they all had the same merit or otherwise.

The single UK customs territory, which is now Section 55 in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act, specifies that there should not be a separate customs territory between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Frankly, I cannot see the circumstances in which this House or the other place would find this acceptable. That being the case, I cannot see any merit in this House seeking to ask the other place to think again about that issue. I do not think anybody in the other place is proposing to revisit it, so my suggestion is that we do not go down the path of thinking that Amendment 79 has merit.

I do not disagree about Amendment 80. I listened with care, but I would not like to try to explain it to somebody else and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is right about that.

I support Amendment 77 because I cannot see any good grounds for why legislation should require the Government to seek new primary legislation to have a customs union of any character with the European Union in the future. If, for example, we want to have a customs union with the United States of America, it could be done by an Order in Council. There is no basis for a distinction of that kind, other than the politics of the moment, and legislation should not be governed by the politics of the moment. If there is a proper process for the scrutiny and approval of a customs union, it should be set out in legislation and apply to any other country with which we establish a customs union and not discriminate and impose additional requirements specifically in relation to the European Union.

That just leaves Amendment 78. I confess I saw this being slightly of the moment, in that it was intended to entrench into statute the provisions in the Chequers White Paper relating to reciprocity in the collection of import duties on behalf of the European Union by the United Kingdom. But as I understood the White Paper, it did not necessarily mean that the European Union would collect import duties on our behalf. There was some suspicion on the part of our colleagues in another place that the negotiations might lead to such an eventuality, and that we would collect duties for the European Union but they would not collect duties for us, so they put this into the legislation. Frankly, that is not where the negotiations are now. We are either in a customs union or we are not; I do not think we are going to be in some sort of asymmetric customs arrangement of that kind. Nobody is debating that presently.

Amendments 77 and 80 have merit. I hope they are not going to be pressed at this point, but my noble friends should certainly think carefully about amending them when we come to Report to enable the other place to think again.

We discussed the customs union last Wednesday. That was the day before an interesting report was produced, principally by German economists at the Ifo Institute. I was encouraged by it, not least because I agree with it. It basically said that, to break the deadlock, both sides have to move from their red lines. In the United Kingdom’s case, that means no longer excluding the possibility of being in a customs union with the EU. In the European Union’s case, it means not treating such an arrangement necessarily to mean that the United Kingdom has to remain a member of the existing customs union or the Customs Union Code. They therefore propose the establishment of a European customs association, in which both the United Kingdom and the member states of the European Union would have voting rights. As a consequence, in the event that the European Commission operated as the representative of the European customs association, it would do so based on a mandate in which the United Kingdom continued to exercise the same kind of authority it presently exercises on the European Union’s customs arrangements.

This customs union would extend only as far as the present custom union applies inside the European Union. The document Hard Brexit Ahead: Breaking the Deadlock contains precisely the kind of discussion we have been having. It is not about whether we are in the customs union; it is what a customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union might look like in the future.

It is doubly encouraging to see that not only put forward but put forward by prominent German economists. I hope that Ministers will continue to look at that in the time available before they have to come back and talk once more to the other place about what the next meaningful vote should be on.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 110 is a very small amendment, but it removes the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere, as I see it, in the working of the TRA. It allows the TRA to act and deliver its work independently, without there being the possibility of the Secretary of State pushing their will on to the decisions that the TRA would have to make.

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, if we are going to anticipate the longer group of amendments, which impact on Schedule 4, I will say a word about Amendments 103A and 107A, which are in my name.

I shared, I confess, the view of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for quite a long time. The conclusion I came to is that we pretty much have to accept the structure which says that we have an independent Trade Remedies Authority, rather than one integral to the Department for International Trade. The analogy is with competition activity. The European Commission runs its own competition regime from a directorate-general of the Commission, with a commissioner in charge. We may think that is right or wrong, but the point is that it is internationally recognised that in that respect, the Commission operates at a significant remove from the day-to-day political pressures in a single country. In this country, we do not operate on the basis that we have a government department providing the competition authority; we do it independently. There is a better analogy there. There is also the analogy of the International Trade Commission in Washington, which is recognised as operating independently of the day-to-day political pressures that otherwise might be exercised in the US Administration or if it were subject directly to Congress. There are analogies that cut both ways, but I am persuaded that having a separate Trade Remedies Authority is best.

It is tricky, because we do not have that many people who are very good at managing trade remedies. We are going to end up with one set of them in the Trade Remedies Authority and another set sometimes in the Department for International Trade having to judge the recommendations being made by the Trade Remedies Authority. I am not quite sure that we shall have enough people to do all those tasks. I hope we do, but it will not be immediately obvious.

Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 states that a chief executive of the Trade Remedies Authority is to be,

“appointed by the Chair with the approval of the Secretary of State or, if the first Chair has not been appointed, by the Secretary of State”.

My Amendment 107A would simply leave out paragraphs 17 to 23, which all relate to the circumstances where a chief executive is appointed by the Secretary of State. We do not want to leave in statute for the longer term that the Secretary of State may appoint the chief executive. It should be the responsibility of the board. That is generally true for most other independent bodies of this kind. I do not see any reason why we should trespass across that if the independence of the Trade Remedies Authority is integral to its function.

All this seems to have been written in the expectation that it would become law at about the same time as the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill did back in September. Back then, there was not a chair-designate of the Trade Remedies Authority, nor was there a chief executive-designate. We now have both. There is no practical reason why the chair cannot be appointed alongside other members of the board, so that they can take responsibility for the appointment of the chief executive. I see no grounds for leaving in the Bill this statutory provision compromising the body’s independence.

My Amendment 103A would specify that, when the Secretary of State came to approve the appointment of a chief executive as proposed by the chair of the board, that should be subject to a report from the International Trade Committee of the House of Commons. I looked at the January 2019 updated guidance from the Cabinet Office on the 50 leading appointments made with pre-appointment hearings by Select Committees. Back in 2008, when I was Secretary of State in the Department of Health, we had seven such appointments, which I think was the largest number of any single department. The Department for International Trade has no such appointments—it is quite a new department—but this is its principal body. In so far as the Select Committee on International Trade is to have a view, it seems that it should have a view about the chief executive and the chair of the Trade Remedies Authority. To be honest, I may have got the amendment wrong; it may be that it is better that the chair be appointed by the Secretary of State following a report by the International Trade Committee—forgive me if I have got it in the wrong place—as the chair is more likely to be the person who should be the subject of scrutiny by the committee. I may reserve that point, as distinct from what is written in Amendment 103A.

I cannot see a good reason why there should not be such scrutiny. The criteria seem threefold: is it important, does it have impact, and does it require independence? All three seem to apply in the case of the Trade Remedies Authority. The amendment would not require the approval of the Select Committee; it would simply require a hearing to take place and a view to be expressed. We know from precedent that on nine occasions Select Committees have made a negative report on appointments proposed by Ministers. In six of those cases, Ministers have proceeded in any case. The amendment is not to prevent Ministers making the appointment that they wish to make; it is to give the Select Committee in another place an opportunity to make a report on the proposed appointment of a chair.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 101A and 103B in my name. I thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for adding his name to both amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for supporting 101A. I have two further amendments in the next group—do not worry, I am not suggesting that we amalgamate these, but I will provide some common background that applies to all four amendments before I speak briefly and specifically to Amendments 101A and 103B.

Materials are very important to us. I happen to be a materials scientist, so I would say that. They are important economically and strategically: obviously, they are the start of the supply chain for anything we manufacture. Advances in materials underpin the technologies and devices we depend on, from the structures and blades of wind turbines, to batteries for electric vehicles, to materials which allow the slow release of drugs in the body, to materials that enable faster communication of data—do not worry, I shall not give a long list. While we have world-leading academic expertise in materials, many of our materials industries are under pressure, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, highlighted. Many of these industries share some common features and it is these common features that make the Trade Remedies Authority so important for them.

Many, such as steel and ceramics, are energy-intensive, so as we decarbonise our economy they will increasingly need to invest in new technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen-fired kilns and things to drastically reduce or eliminate their CO₂ emissions. They are affected by our very necessary requirements for high environmental standards. Many are located in economically vulnerable parts of the country and, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned, many have experienced serious problems in the past arising from dumping and subsidy by overseas Governments. Current world trade issues, such as the US-China trade dispute, resulting in overproduction in many areas in China, and Brexit, are understandably causing concern.

So our materials producers, along with many other industry sectors, welcome the establishment of the Trade Remedies Authority in the Bill. They think the UK needs a strong and independent authority to investigate alleged dumping and subsidy cases and to recommend remedies. Producers need to know that the TRA will be a body that understands the impacts of dumping and subsidy on UK companies, to give them the confidence to continue with their investment programmes—investment that will be critical to delivering the Government’s clean growth strategy. We have already heard a bit about the definition of the membership of the TRA and its governance. Both Clause 10 and Schedule 4 make the independence of the TRA a very clear objective. However we have already heard that this does not sit entirely comfortably with the chair and non-executives being appointed entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. By contrast, the TRA will have wide discretion in the way it conducts trade remedy investigations, which is clearly crucial for its independence.

However, in combination, these factors build a degree of uncertainty into the system for manufacturers. A strong message about the composition of the TRA board, giving assurance that individuals with current experience in the manufacturing industry, from both a management and worker perspective, would be there alongside trade remedy experts, economists, academics, legal experts and people with other relevant skills would help remove uncertainty and risk for UK producers. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, reminded us, because trade remedies have been a Brussels competence, trade remedy expertise is likely to be in somewhat short supply in the UK. It is critical that the TRA board is not made up mainly of theoretical modellers and economists but has a real balance of theory, analysis and practical, hands-on experience. The recent move by the Government to accept the principle of involving those most affected by trade policy in its development—for example, through the recruitment of a diverse stakeholder strategic trade advisory group—is very welcome. Trade remedies should be no exception, with both producers and trade unions involved.

Amendments 101A and 103B would ensure that both manufacturing and trade union experience are present on the TRA board, and that there is consultation with stakeholders before appointments are made. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government recognise the benefits of this broad approach for the TRA membership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

We can be relatively brief on these amendments; they are substantial in their drafting, and the points have been made so we do not need to repeat them. We have been dealing until now with the procedures and set-up of the new body. These are proposals for guidance on some of the ways in which future policy might be developed and taken forward. Having said that, Amendment 85 follows an exchange in the other place, where it was confirmed that there would be an appeals mechanism, but there is still no reference to that in the Bill, as far as I can see. This is a suggestion for a way in which the appeals mechanism—which should be there or, as agreed in principle, will be there—against decisions by the TRA and the Secretary of State might be set out. I offer it to the Government for their consideration.

[Lord Lansley]

I am not clear. Is the noble Lord’s intention behind the amendment that the Upper Tribunal would look at the merits of the decision or simply at the processes? Are we simply talking about a judicial review process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I will get through this very quickly and then questions can flow in. Amendment 85, which has already been accepted, therefore sets out an appeals process for the Government to respond to. Amendment 86 relates to how these are disposed of and the procedures for that. The two go together and will be difficult to separate, but again the Government must take that forward.

We have already had reference to how recommendations from the TRA for action or no action would be based on two issues—an economic interest test and a public interest test—but we do not have any definition of those. They are obviously good ideas and sensible approaches, around which decisions can be placed, but the narrow question of what they constitute and, more importantly, how they would be kept in scope with how people’s views change over time, is not dealt with in the Bill. Therefore, Amendment 87, which deals with the public interest test, and Amendment 88, which deals with the economic interest test, set out not so much the detail of what they consist of but the process under which they might be organised.

[Lord Lansley]

I agree that the public interest test is not defined anywhere, but is the economic interest test not defined in paragraph 23 of Schedule 5 to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his interventions, which are always helpful, but I was going on to say that the economic interest test is different from the public interest test because some aspects of it are fleshed out. But the intention of Amendment 88 is to extend that slightly to ensure that two things happen. The first is that there should be a consultation about what the economic interest test is among those whose interests might be affected by it. Those involved in,

“employment, economic health and prosperity, and productivity”,

which includes trade unions, businesses and consumers, should be consulted on how one constitutes the economic test.

Secondly, it is important that the test must reach not just for a national economic view but down to a regional, or even sub-regional, point of view. The suggestion would be for the devolved Administrations and for the various regions of England to be parts of a group that could respond on things. Clearly, an economic test dealing with a small aspect of the ceramics industry based in a particular area will be different from one dealing with a major national employment issue.

Again, these amendments are not meant to be accepted as written, but they are probing suggestions to get the Government to flesh out in more detail their thinking behind this.

We always talk about what is in the public interest but never define what that means. I am not trying to define it. I am saying that it would be useful to have a process under which, from time to time, a Secretary of State who wished to employ that as part of the process for the TRA had to consult and then come forward with proposals through Parliament for what that constituted. That is what these amendments are all about.

Finally, Amendment 89 in my name suggests that TRA investigations can be considered complete only when they involve the devolved Administrations and the devolved authorities. I hope that will also commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for interrupting him. Of course, there is a requirement to have proper appeals, as has just been elegantly explained by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but I was interested in whether they had to be the subject of special tribunals or whether they could in fact be fitted into the existing court system. My main concern as a former business person is with speed. Sometimes tribunals, public interest tests and so on can be a field day for lawyers and the whole thing can take a very long time. That is not what we want. We want to be able to make sure that the interests of our industries and other players are properly protected.

[Lord Lansley]

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is absolutely right that the economic interest test is present in both Schedules 4 and 5 to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act. As set out there, the test seems to me to be capable of being, and is required under the legislation to be, taken down to the level of individual industries, looking specifically at affected industries and consumers and the likely impact on particular geographic areas or particular groups. It seems to me that the economic interest test is already capable of being disaggregated in the ways that the noble Lord is calling for.

The noble Lord and I have joined together on the issue of the public interest test in the past. I am not sure that you can define it in advance—that is the difficulty with it. Trying to write down what public interest the Secretary of State has to weigh up seems to be intensely difficult, as distinct from the economic interest test. It might include defence industries and security interests, and we see that coming through in relation to competition. We also see it in broadcasting and competition regimes. There are a range of competition-specific public interests, and I do not think that we are necessarily looking to restrict the test in that way in this legislation. Frankly, we might be better off simply looking at it and, if there are particular public interests that have to be protected as time goes on, we should perhaps have the power to add to them by way of regulation, as is the case with competition legislation.

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord McNicol, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for tabling these amendments. I take the opportunity to clarify initially that the Trade Bill does not set out the policy framework that the TRA will be responsible for operating. These provisions are already set out in the TCBT Act 2018, including the economic interest test, which places a requirement on the TRA to consider the wider economic impacts of imposing measures on other affected groups, such as downstream users and consumers.

The economic interest test provides continuity from the Union interest test in the current EU system. However, we listened carefully to concerns that the Union interest test is, for example, too opaque and does not set out how different interests are to be considered. Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Lansley correctly stated, the Act specifies the economic factors which must be considered under the test, and that will provide businesses with greater clarity over how the test is applied. That is what business has asked us to do. In terms of the public interest test, I can only endorse what my noble friend Lord Lansley said.

In addition, there is an explicit presumption in the Act that, where injury is caused by dumped or subsidised goods, the TRA will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for the imposition of measures. The Government amended the legislation during its passage to make that absolutely clear. The burden of proof rests on the TRA to show that measures will be detrimental to the wider economic interest; otherwise it must make a recommendation, and any failure to do so will be subject to appeal. I assure your Lordships—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, who raised this matter—that this presumption will have the effect of ensuring that special consideration is given to the injury caused to UK industry by imports of dumped or subsidised goods. I wanted to say that explicitly in Committee here because I know of some of the concerns in the ceramics industry.

The Act also places the same presumption for the imposition of measures on the Secretary of State and makes clear that the Secretary of State can only reject the TRA’s recommendations for measures on public interest grounds, or where he determines that the economic interest test is one the TRA could not reasonably have made. Any such decision can be appealed by interested parties and must be explained in a Statement to the other place.

With respect to Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I remind the Committee that we are committed to ensuring that our industry receives protection. That is why we will transition those EU measures that matter to UK industry, including on steel, ceramics and chemicals, into our system once we have our own, independent trade policy. We will monitor the effectiveness of the trade remedies system and, if we find that it is not working as it should, we will of course make any changes necessary.

As I mentioned before, I am sure that the Committee will understand that the public interest issue is not something we can review or consult on. What constitutes public interest will change depending on the economic and geopolitical circumstances of the day, and the Government must have the flexibility to respond to such changes. This is a power that we expect to be used in rare cases and, when it is, again the Secretary of State will be required to lay a Statement before the other place justifying its use.

Your Lordships have raised rightful questions on the role of the devolved Administrations in relation to trade remedies. Importantly, the economic interest test mandates that account must be taken of particular geographic areas, as well as other economic matters that may be considered relevant. This will ensure that the impacts of measures on different regions—including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and regions of England—are given due consideration where appropriate and will include any information that is shared, or issues that are raised, by the devolved Administrations.

Further, regarding Amendment 89, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I reassure the Committee that any party not defined as an interested party may register its interest in a particular case with the TRA and will then become a contributor. This will include the devolved Administrations. Contributors will be invited by the TRA to submit relevant information, which it will be obliged to take into account in the investigation as appropriate. My officials will advise the devolved Administrations when an investigation is opened by the TRA, which will alert them to the need to take a decision on whether or not to register.

Where the TRA terminates an investigation without recommending the imposition of measures, it is required to publish details of its recommendations and decisions. Contributor status will mean that DAs will automatically be notified by the TRA of actions it has taken. But I recognise that they will also—rightly, in their capacity as devolved government—have an interest in the decision made by the Secretary of State, including in having an opportunity to offer views on relevant public interest considerations which he should take into account when arriving at a decision. I can confirm that my officials will work with their colleagues in the devolved Administrations to put appropriate arrangements in place.

I turn now to Amendment 90B and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for tabling this amendment. As I have explained, the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act has already been considered, and passed, by the other place, which has accepted that the negative procedure is the appropriate scrutiny mechanism, as we discussed earlier.

With regards to Amendments 85 and 86, the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, is right that there should be an appeals process; indeed, this is necessary to be compliant with our WTO obligations. We do not support the amendment, but I assure noble Lords that there are already powers in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act to establish an appeals system for the UK’s trade remedies system, and my officials have been working closely with the MoJ to develop a clear, transparent process. I completely accept the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about how critical this is. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that speed matters to companies too.

There will be an initial consideration when an appeal is raised by the TRA, followed by a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal. This ensures that basic administrative errors can be resolved more quickly and effectively than moving straight to the tribunal, so limiting those cases to more substantial issues of law. It combines independence, as required by WTO law, with the advantages of a proportionate and efficient system. As the Secretary of State informed the International Trade Select Committee in his letter of 14 January, the judicial route for appeals will be to the tax chamber of the Upper Tribunal. The Tribunal Procedure Committee, the responsible statutory body, has recently completed a consultation on the rule changes required to allow the Upper Tribunal to hear trade remedy cases. Once that process has been fully completed, the necessary appeals statutory instrument will be laid in due course and scrutinised in the normal way.

Our proposed regime draws on international best practice from comparable WTO members. Its measures provide for the assessment of whether there was an error in law based on the evidence that was available to the decision-maker at the time, and some include processes akin to the TRA’s reconsideration.

I hope my responses have provided reassurance to your Lordships and that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, did me a great favour by alleging that I had partial paternity of this amendment, but I will leave that to one side. It is a very simple amendment, setting in statute the view that has been expressed twice by this House, by massive majorities, and once in the House of Commons last week: that leaving the European Union on 29 March by default without an agreement should be excluded. That is what this amendment proposes to do. It does not prevent this Act, as it would be, coming into effect in the event of the meaningful process being successfully completed in the other place. Nor does it do so if the other place should, in the extraordinarily unlikely circumstances, actually decide that we should leave without a deal. However, it rules out leaving by default as a condition for the entry into force of the provisions in this Act. No more needs to be said, and I have a feeling that we may wish to debate that rather more decisively on Report.

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Altmann, who is unable to be here and asked me to extend her apologies. I think she would have shared the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that Amendment 98 would not prevent our exit without an agreement, which is the default situation under the statute law as it remains, but it would certainly enable one to put into the equation consideration of the damage and chaos that would result if one were to leave by default without an agreement and without the statute book and continuity agreements being in place. Both Houses would have to think hard about that. It is a contest between different visions of what kind of chaos might ensue. Unfortunately, that is essentially where we are.

My noble friends on the Front Bench have done a grand job, not least in keeping us on track, wherever possible, in understanding the importance of getting this legislation into the right structure rather than being distracted too often and too far into discussion of Brexit. I think we agreed at Second Reading that the Bill is occasioned by Brexit but is not really about it; nor, technically, is it about the future processes and structures of free trade agreements. Their approach has enabled us to have what I think will be some interesting, positive and constructive discussions on Report, arising out of this Committee, when we can really focus on one or two specifics. My noble friends will have been given an indication of what kinds of considerations will be important to the House in thinking about free trade agreements as they come along.

[Lord Hain]

My Lords, I realise that the hour is late, but I rise to support Amendment 98, which would make it much more difficult for the Government to preside over a default no-deal Brexit, and to encourage the development of alternative strategies.

Due to the failure of the Government to develop a credible Brexit strategy, there is now a grave danger of the UK crashing out of the European Union on 29 March—in just over 50 days’ time—as the default option. This would have truly devastating consequences. However, because of the Brexit-related legislation already on the statute book defining exit day as 29 March 2019, it is possible that Parliament will not have the powers to stop it happening.

The amendment would therefore put a limitation on the commencement of the Trade Bill and provide that Clause 2(1), which gives the Government powers to implement international free trade agreements, can be implemented only on the condition that either: Parliament has approved a negotiated deal; the Government have requested an extension of Article 50; Parliament has approved a no-deal departure; or Parliament has voted for a second referendum. It would also offer your Lordships’ House a chance firmly to reject the possibility of the UK crashing out of the EU in a no-deal scenario.

The hard Brexiteers of the European Research Group, who assert that no deal would be an acceptable option, argue that Britain’s trade outside the EU is increasing at a much faster rate than trade with EU countries. However, this ignores the fact that measuring growth starting from a much lower base is always higher in percentage terms. They also fail to mention that trade with non-EU countries is not a binary choice and has been boosted by the EU’s own trade agreements with those countries, from which the UK benefits as an EU member—witness Germany’s spectacular trade increases with China, for instance. If noble Lords have any doubt about this, they should look at the website of the Department for International Trade. In the case of the recent trade agreement between the European Union and Canada, we read:

“UK trade with Canada up 14% since new free trade agreement introduced”.


This is a reference to CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada, which was signed in 2017 after seven years of negotiations. EU free trade agreements with non-EU countries such as Canada, South Korea and Japan were negotiated with the leverage and weight of the 500 million-strong market of the whole EU, which the UK will lose after Brexit. Brexiteer fantasies about WTO rules ignore the complexity of the necessary reallocation of the UK’s share of EU tariffs and quota schedules, which will require difficult negotiations. They also disregard the application of rules of origin to UK goods trying to enter the EU market, which the Government have previously estimated could cost firms between 4% and 15%.

Trade Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to Amendment 62 in my name, which is part of a series of amendments in this group concerning mutual recognition— mutual recognition of good manufacturing practice, in this instance. I was prompted to table the amendment not least because many people in the pharmaceutical industry see this issue as an important part of our future economic partnership arrangements with the European Union, whether we continue to be EU members or in the single market or not.

Like Amendment 42 on the mutual recognition of authorised economic operators, Amendment 62 relates to instances of where the European Union has substantial mutual recognition agreements with third-party countries. In the case of authorised economic operators, those countries include Switzerland, Japan, the United States and similar countries—although not China in the instance of good manufacturing practice. It would be deeply perverse for us to start with standards that align entirely with those of the European Union, whether on authorised economic operators or good manufacturing practice, looking at the two amendments. If we lost that relationship with the European Union, it would make obvious good sense to maintain that mutual recognition.

In that context, the amendments commend themselves to my noble friends on the Front Bench because they are about continuity and trying to maintain the existing structure of agreements. Of course we want mutual recognition of good manufacturing practice with not only the European Union but the United States, Japan and Switzerland because, if we leave the European Union, four of the five largest pharmaceutical companies will be outside the European Union, with two in Switzerland and two in the United Kingdom. This issue matters a great deal to this important industry. Unfortunately, given the uncertainty and the way in which the European Commission sent advice to companies on their responsibility to prepare as if there would be no deal, pharmaceutical companies have, of course, already invested a considerable amount in ensuring that their batch authorisations and conformity assessments—and the authorisations associated with those—can be conducted inside the EU 27. That has cost quite a lot of pharmaceutical companies quite a lot of money already.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, was quite right: this group of amendments is about the plumbing, the innards, of this issue. I am afraid that day by day, evidence of the enormity of the cost—in time, energy and money—of trying to stay as close as we can to the position we would have been in if we had stayed in the European Union is mounting. It does not do to dwell on that but there we are.

Finally, I am really surprised that some of our Brexit-supporting colleagues are not here to laud Amendment 38—the lead amendment in the group— on the common transit convention, which will assist significantly with customs simplification and the achievement of some reduction in the friction that might otherwise occur in trade. It is achieved with third-party countries and is not something that the EU absolutely has to offer. However—although I stand to be corrected by my noble friends—as the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, has said, it appears to have been agreed not only that we would remain within the common transit convention after exit day but that we would continue to remain in it even if we were to leave without a deal. That is a positive development.

Associated with it is the new computerised transit system which will help us to try to make progress on some of the customs simplifications that, whatever happens, will be important to the reduction of business costs. I commend to my noble friends Amendment 62, which should certainly be an objective of the Government in their current discussions about the future relationship with the European Union.

[Lord Risby (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48. I am a director of the Horserace Betting Levy Board as a government appointee, and a former Member of Parliament for Newmarket, which, after all, is historically the world headquarters of racing. Equine matters are very dear to my heart.

The situation we have, which is a tripartite deal, developed before the European Union became involved. There is some level of involvement on the part of the European Union and negotiations have been going on in Brussels between the British Horseracing Authority and the Commission. It is important to highlight this because the system has been in existence for many years and has been absolutely seamless. The relationship between the United Kingdom, France and Ireland has flourished. We can think of Irish horses winning in large numbers at Cheltenham, French successes at Ascot and Newmarket, and our own recent victories in the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe.

The real key is this. The system of horse passports and documentation is managed in the United Kingdom by our highly respected industry bodies: Weatherbys, the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association and the British Horseracing Authority, with the approval of Defra and the Animal and Plant Health Agency. It works extremely well and is therefore something that should be cherished. It is particularly important to the economy of the Republic of Ireland. People in the equine industry in Ireland are extremely anxious about this situation being damaged in any way.

As a result of the support over the years of our Governments for the equine industry, stretching right across party divides, it has turned into a great success story and is the best-managed and best-organised racing industry in the world. It contributes to the pleasure of millions of people who watch horseracing either at racecourses or on television. All our facilities have been upgraded and the industry should be supported.

I will refer to the comments made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. If it were somehow possible to retrieve this from where it seems to have landed up and see it go back to its original tripartite status, which was actually free of the European Union, that would be excellent. However, the reality is that for whatever reason there has been a process of greater and greater involvement by the European Union; in which case, I will ask my noble friend two simple questions. What will happen during the transition period in this area of activity which is so important to us? What is our negotiating objective for the longer term as far as the work of the British Horseracing Authority with our own Government is concerned?

I conclude by expressing my admiration for many colleagues both in your Lordships’ House and in another place who have done so much work over the years to keep this industry up to the highest possible standards of governance and popularity. Finally, I will praise one particular individual. When the Single European Act came in and there was a change in the way that VAT was dealt with, we nearly lost the racing industry altogether. We had a huge fight, but it was saved by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my noble friend Lord Lamont. For anyone who is interested in and has a passion for racing, he of all people is someone to whom we owe a great deal.

Migration: International Students

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the fact that there is no cap on student numbers is all to the good. People want to come to this country to study, they are doing so in increasing numbers and, as I pointed out just before we broke up for the Christmas Recess, the increase in post-study leave is to be welcomed and will benefit students.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend is, I believe, saying that we want to encourage international students to come to this country. The confusion arises because they feel that our net migration objectives run counter to that. Would it not be simplest to identify the students coming to and leaving this country separately in national statistics?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we are following the advice of the independent Migration Advisory Committee. Similarly, the ONS takes that view of migration statistics. Indeed, we are in line with many countries in the world which do the same. In fact, because there is no limit on the number of students who come here, there is no disbenefit to students being counted in those figures.

Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2018

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Lords Chamber

That brings me to the wider context, which is the general level of Home Office fees, which has already been referred to. Would it not have made sense, as my noble friend says, to have awaited the report on fee levels that is due from the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration before going ahead with this measure? Can the Minister give us an idea of when the Home Office expects to receive the chief inspector’s report and when the Home Office will publish it—those can be two very different things; there can be quite a long gap in between—and will she undertake that it will not be published on the eve of a recess in the middle of a whole lot of other reports so that no one notices, as is the Home Office’s wont?

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, may I recount a story to the House from several years ago? I think it was around the time I was first appointed Secretary of State for Health. I was visiting a GP surgery in Cambridge, close to my constituency. The GP said to me, “There’s one thing I want you to think about. We have, obviously, many students come to Cambridge University. When they arrive they register with GPs, and many register with us. Happily, in some cases they never come to see us, but others do. When they come to see a doctor, I talk to them and prescribe whatever it might be. Then, when they go out of the door, the Americans, the Australians and the Chinese—many of these students come from outside the European Union—immediately go to the reception desk and ask where they’re going to pay. They are rather staggered to be told, ‘But you’re not paying. You pay nothing’. They say, ‘How can this be? Here we are in your country. If we were at home, we would be paying’”. They regard it as an absurd proposition. They are not here permanently and, in their view, they are therefore not entitled to the free care that those permanently resident in the UK should receive. This is an anomaly created by the use of the term “ordinarily resident” for access to NHS services. Although, as Secretary of State, I did not introduce the health surcharge, I none the less supported it when it was introduced.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made a good job of objecting to something which I think he knows—and the House should know—is an entirely reasonable proposition. Not only should people who come here to take advantage of the opportunity to work here make the appropriate contribution to NHS services, the amount should be determined in relation to the average costs, which is a bargain for anyone actually accessing NHS services. Therefore, I will not support the amendment and support the order.

I say this in parenthesis to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about Filipino nurses. The Philippines has consistently—over many years—trained more nurses than it could possibly require in the expectation that Filipino nurses will get jobs abroad, principally in America. Many Filipino nurses came to Papworth Hospital in previous years. They have been extremely successful and many have settled. In recent years, we have had principally European Union nurses, but we would do well to have more Filipino nurses in future—if we can attract them, given the higher salaries that they enjoy in America. We are certainly not depriving the Philippines of nurses that it requires and it has never been the Government’s intention to do so.

That said, I shall not support the amendment. The Government are right and moderate in the increase to the charge that they seek.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley]

I cannot bear that assertion being put on the record without being refuted: American taxation pays for healthcare—it pays for Medicare, Medicaid and the CDC. American public expenditure on health is nearly as large, as a proportion of GDP, as British expenditure on health. It is just incredibly inefficient. As my noble friend says, those who travel to America and work do not get access to Medicare or Medicaid.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am glad to have a former Health Secretary standing behind me to put noble Lords—and me—absolutely right.

United Nations World Humanitarian Summit

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. This is a very important summit. It will tackle a lot of issues, including the agreements that were reached at Sendai and Paris, to ensure that those strong linkages between the disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation agendas continue. On the wider point, it is about making sure that the reforms that are required to ensure preparedness for future crises are also part of the bigger reform agenda. As I said, we also need to encourage other partners and donors and the private sector to step up to the mark.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the British representative at the humanitarian summit will be able, by virtue of having met our commitment to the 0.7% GDP target, to give a lead to others, and that it is very important that we give that lead in May? Does she also agree that one of the projects that we should take on with our commitment of future resources is to increase the supply of expert humanitarian aid co-ordinators so that there is a corps in place not only for dealing with crises when they happen but of sufficient numbers that they can stay in place and help with the recovery from crises in some of the most desperate areas?

[Baroness Verma]

I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for the points he has raised, particularly on the 0.7% commitment that we have managed to embed and deliver. He is also right that we need to prepare ourselves for future crises but also help build resilience in infrastructure in countries that really need it, particularly in their health systems. My noble friend is absolutely right that we need to make sure that we not only support people with the skills but prepare people locally to have those skills.

United Nations World Humanitarian Summit

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

Yes, my Lords. Again, the noble Lord raises some important points. One of the key things we want to be able to do from the summit is to bring together not just Governments but civil society organisations and people from academia to see how we can respond to the growing need to make sure that young people particularly are able to get trained, educated and engaged in employment. They need meaningful life skills so that we do not end up with a generation unable to respond to the ever-growing demands of the 21st century.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that the United Kingdom’s commitment to 0.7% of gross domestic product as international development aid gives us the opportunity to give leadership at the World Humanitarian Summit. Can we use that and our commitment to predictable multiyear financing to lead in the development of training programmes for additional professionals capable of responding to humanitarian crises—not only trained but also available—since the use of additional financial resources depends on trained professionals in the field?

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend again addresses a real, serious issue—one we recognised when we had to deal with the Ebola crisis in Sierra Leone. Our ambition for the summit is one of radical change to humanitarian action. We need much more efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in our responses and the responses of others, including a much-strengthened professional humanitarian workforce.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is a very interesting development that Labour Members are now back in favour of ID cards. I thought even they had seen the folly of their ways. We are introducing proper border checks so that we can count people in and count people out—something that was never available under Labour, and something that Labour actually helped to get rid of. We are also ensuring that we know more about those who are coming and when they have left.

[Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will recall our support for the training of Libyan troops at Bassingbourn barracks in my constituency. Does he share my concern that the programme failed to maintain discipline, and the consequences of that were very serious in my local community? Will the Ministry of Defence account fully to my constituents for the failures in the delivery of the programme, and does the Prime Minister agree that the Libyan soldiers should now be repatriated to Libya, and that there is no basis for any of them to seek or receive asylum in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my right hon. Friend on every front. What has happened at Bassingbourn in Cambridgeshire is completely unacceptable. These are criminal actions, and I have asked the Chief of the Defence Staff for a report into that. A decision was taken at the National Security Council, which I chaired on 28 October, to end the training altogether. The trainees will be returning to Libya in the coming days and, in the meantime, all unescorted visits from the camp have been stopped altogether.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: this is an investment in tackling conflict, building prosperity, promoting good governance and tackling poverty. That is what the development budget does. In that respect, the UK is a world leader. Our security and stability in this country are assured not only by our brilliant armed forces, but by training the police in Afghanistan, building up governance structures in the middle east and getting girls in the horn of Africa into school. All those things make us safer and more secure in this country. It is hugely in our national interest and that is what the development budget is spent on.

One example that is worth mentioning is Somalia. Britain intervened to try to do something about the appalling famine that took place there in 2011. By crowding in the regional powers, the different parties in Somalia and the great powers at the United Nations to a conference in London, we tried to ensure that that benighted country—some of the most ungoverned space in the world—could develop some sort of order. Whisper it not too loudly, but after so many failed international attempts during the past 20 years, progress is being made in Somalia. It is another example of development policy that is helping people in one of the most benighted countries in the world, and also helping our security and stability in Britain.

In looking at the problems in northern Nigeria, Mali, Libya, Somalia, Iraq and Syria, we can all accept that although there may be a need for smart weapons delivered from 12,000 feet, people are responsive to the smart policies of tackling corruption and of building accountability and good governance, and UK development spending contributes to all those things.

When it comes to building prosperity, at one level our work has helped the poorest in the world through microfinance and, at the top level, the important reforms of the CDC have made it far more accountable and far better at delivering development objectives through the deployment of patient capital and pioneer capital. The significance of that very important reform will increasingly be seen. Under its new chairman, Graham Wrigley, and its outstanding chief executive, Diana Noble, the CDC is once again giving a lead around the world in tackling poverty.

One area where I agree with the Minister—I know that the Bill’s promoter is absolutely receptive to this point—is that the Independent Commission for Aid Impact is the right mechanism to ensure accountability. Under its chairman, Graham Ward, it has done an excellent job. It is a vital addition to the development architecture. ICAI is not a comfortable organisation for Ministers, as I fully recall. It reports not to Ministers, who are able to sweep inconvenient truths under the carpet, but to the International Development Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and his Committee colleagues have shown themselves to be fearless in pursuing the Government when alerted to difficulties by the independent commission. ICAI can deliver precisely what my right hon. Friend wants to see in the Bill, and what the House wishes to endorse.

[Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I confess that I cannot see why the Independent Commission for Aid Impact should not be given statutory backing. I therefore hope that when the Bill is further considered, it might be possible, in clause 5, simply to give statutory backing to what has been created as ICAI.

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Of course, ICAI was created through an Order in Council. There have been discussions about placing it on a statutory basis, and I think that it should be, because it has earned such a position. He may want to speak to our right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, whom I am sure he will find receptive.

Let us pass the Bill and take development spending out of party politics. The Bill reflects our values as a country and our desire to help the least well-off. It is also hugely in our national interest, which is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and my other hon. Friends on the dissident Bench. The Bill is hugely in our national interest, and it is an investment in greater security and prosperity for us all and in the future of our children and of generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stephen O’Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to some of the subjects covered in the Bill.

I warmly welcome the Bill and congratulate its promoter and sponsors on bringing it forward. Having introduced a couple of private Members’ Bills in the past, I know how much work has preceded my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) bringing it to the Chamber today.

I also congratulate all the previous speakers, because their contributions highlighted, in their various ways, what this subject is really about; they showed that it goes across the House and it is above party politics. We have a deep commitment, as part of our values as a nation in the relatively richer part of the planet, and we are able to find what our role is as global citizens in an increasingly globalised world. Therefore, I also welcome the appropriate scrutiny and challenge provided by those who are focused on the essence of what we are dealing with today, which is not so much whether or not we should have good international development and a humanitarian capacity but, above all, whether it is appropriate to enshrine it in law as a matter of our politics, our choice and our accountability to the people we represent.

The Bill is notably well drafted, although I take the same issue as others have with one aspect. I had some share of the responsibility for introducing the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, and we have seen how it works as an accountable mechanism to the Select Committee, not to Ministers, and has caused some discomfort to Ministers, both past, such as me, and current. When this Bill progresses into Committee, as I hope it does, It will be interesting to see whether clause 5 can be amended to bring this mechanism in line with what is already established, and without duplication.

Equally, it will be important to understand what we mean by introducing declaratory legislation. I share the grave discomfiture of other Members about this House passing such legislation, so I have had to ask myself about this today and when I was defending this policy as a Minister. The policy was promoted in all three main parties’ manifestos and survived the coalition agreement in explicit terms, which means that we are all here in this Session of Parliament standing on that promise. None the less it is declaratory legislation, so what is the true meaning of why we do it? It is not as though this is about a criminal sanction, an offence or a civil requirement to make up money if it is not spent; it is about this House having the chance to receive, at an authoritative level, a statement from the Secretary of State and if we have failed to live up to the promises we have all made, we will see the ultimate expression of political embarrassment. So we are talking about one of our greatest abilities to put the feet of Ministers and any Government, of any stripe, to the fire.

[Mr Lansley]

I find it ironic that in so far as there is opposition to this target being put into legislation, it often comes from those who, in other circumstances, are most zealous in saying that Parliament is separate from Government and that it is the job of Parliament to say what its view is, as distinct from relying on the Government to deliver things. Does my right hon. Friend share that feeling? In truth, as we know, if Parliament wishes something to happen and wishes to require the Government to do it, it has to set it in statute. This Bill allows Parliament to do exactly that, in a relationship with the Government; the relationship is not with the courts, but just between Parliament and the Government.

[Mr O'Brien]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that, and for his expertise in understanding the procedures of this House and its relationship with the representational accountability we have as constituency Members. He is right to say that the pressure involved here is on not allowing the courts to intervene on targets—we have seen that going wrong in other circumstances. Having too many targets encompassed by these methods would devalue them. But isolating and choosing particular key targets on which there is accountability to this House, where we have the political power to hold people to account on them, is precisely what underpins the Bill, and that is why this proposed statute is absolutely the right way to go.

I do not wish to detain the House longer than is necessary, because we have heard a lot of powerful contributions on the true justification for the Bill. I believe we all feel passionately that we have an obligation to find a way to support the most vulnerable on our planet, and most see things in terms of a combination. Some may see this just as a moral imperative, and that is great, but in a way that view is not shared. This is a fundamental, hard-nosed, pragmatic expression of our British self-interest: not only is this approach better for the potential trade we can have with more stable countries whose economic growth and human development indices can be improved, but we cannot have security in this ever more doubtful and very frightening world unless we first tackle the nursery bed upon which insecurity breeds, which is poverty, particularly in places where there are avoidable deaths. That is why, for one reason or another, I have devoted at least 30 years to trying to tackle tropical diseases.

I do not wish to be accused of being a soft touch on these matters; I am someone who believes passionately in the defence of the realm. Although it is best to leave things when they are seen as personal issues, I take a particularly keen interest in the matter, not because I enjoyed my service in the armed forces parliamentary scheme and am about to join the Royal College of Defence Studies course, but because I have a son who is an officer cadet at Sandhurst. These things are interrelated with security, governance and democratic accountability. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), whose work in this area has been well acknowledged and rightly so, said that the greatest undermining issue for all of us involved in this world is the sense that this issue is either wasted or corrupted. The best antiseptic or antidote to that is transparency, and enormous progress is being made in that area, not least by the ICAI, which reports not to Ministers but to the objective Select Committee.

This debate is not about the merits of international development, modalities or even re-emphasising why performing such work is as much in our British interest as it is in our rightful role as global citizens. We should not necessarily be focused only on impacts and the potential for graduation from aid and economic development to trade. South Korea, Vietnam and Angola have made such a graduation; how many more such examples can we look forward to in the coming years? This is not about defining the post-2015 goals, but about fulfilling our promises. That is fundamental for all of us who are committed to democracy. When we stand on platforms and make promises, we need to have the means by which we can deliver on those promises.

Questions remain. In addition to the scale of our work, we need to look at the technical excellence of DFID. The Department has become a world leader in its delivery capability, research capacity and ability to forge partnerships. Our current Secretary of State and the ministerial team show leadership and ensure that there is integration in their work. It is a Department of State delivering on broad Government objectives and policies and not some semi-detached part of Government working on a separate agenda. It is integral to our desire for a secure world, which can deliver the best benefits for all citizens.

Above all, we are talking about the capacity of DFID to build sustainable partnerships, increase the domestic mobilisation of resources as economies develop, work with non-governmental organisations, philanthropists, companies and businesses, and be explicit that this is not a public versus private sector battle. This is a joint enterprise in which we are all trying to reach the same objective, which is to prevent avoidable deaths and improve the conditions, lives and opportunities of those who, with a bit of help, can certainly have that chance.

Why are we talking about declaratory legislation? It would be interesting to introduce a Bill in which we promise never to spend less than 2% of our gross national income on defence. Instinctively, I am sympathetic to that idea. This is different, important and has to happen. It is not like defence, which is of course a proper choice of this Parliament and of Governments. It is right that they should decide how much to put into defence and where they sit in the world. This has to happen because we made a promise that was measured by the Development Assistance Committee and the OECD against a completely objective international set of criteria. That means that in order to enshrine our assistance as a percentage—therefore fluctuating with our own GNI and prosperity—we have an objective test to meet. For the Secretary of State to come to this House to report that we have fulfilled that objective promise is important not only as a useful encouragement to others to step up to the plate as well, but because it gives us a sense that we can look our constituents in the eye and say that when we made that promise we meant it. On their behalf, we have used taxpayers’ money. It is not just money from their pockets, which would be better described as charity rather than assistance for development purposes. That gives us the chance to make the scale differences.

I support this Bill. The 0.7% of GNI measured by an international test needs that objective reporting accountability within the best political sphere we can find, which is this Parliament under the tests imposed by clause 3. I hope that although there will always be examples that can easily be produced to try to undermine the whole agenda, such as a bit of waste or a bit of corruption here and there, that will not take away from our commitment—a commitment made by us, who have the privilege of access to greater funds than many countries whose people’s lives we wish to improve, and a commitment that will outlast most of us in this Chamber—to help the stability of the world and to reduce the opportunities for opportunist insecurity enacted by people who do not share our values and do not want chances for their own people. The Bill is the best way of enshrining the feet-to-the-fire approach that will give us greater impetus and, above all, confidence and predictability as it would make it very difficult for any future Government or set of politicians to undermine it. That will give us all confidence that we have an opportunity to build a better future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. On the Prevent programme, what we have done is try to divide up the different elements of it. One part is about community cohesion, which is best led by the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the other part is best run by the Home Office through the Prevent programme. That is what we have done.

What we need to be absolutely clear about, however, is that it is not enough to target those who preach violent extremism. We need to go after those who promote the extremist narrative and life view that gives the terrorists and the men of violence support for what they do. It is not unlike the cold war, where we pursued not just those who wanted to do us such harm; we also had to challenge all those who gave them succour. That is what we need to do in this struggle, which, as I have said, I think will last for decades, and we need to show resilience and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, unity in pursuing it.

[Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

In this Parliament, our coalition Government have increased health spending in England by more than £17 billion a year. As a direct consequence of that, the block grant to Scotland, which supports NHS funding in Scotland, has increased by £1.7 billion a year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that gives the lie to Alex Salmond’s propaganda about the NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because of the decisions we took—long-term decisions after a careful assessment—to increase spending on the health service, that has given extra money for Scotland to spend on the NHS. That gives the lie to one of Alex Salmond’s claims. His second claim that, somehow, a Westminster Government could privatise parts of the NHS in Scotland is complete and utter nonsense. The only person who could privatise parts of the NHS in Scotland is Alex Salmond. You can tell someone has lost the argument when they start having ludicrous ideas about what they would do themselves.