UK Logistics Industry

Debate between Lord Lexden and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

Lord Taylor of Warwick? No? Then I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, does my noble friend share my concern that the reason there are no queues at ports in relation to farm goods and fish products is because many of them are stuck on the continental port side? We have 100,000 pigs still stuck on farms, poultry is down by 20%, and the fish scenario will be familiar to her. What efforts can the Government make to ensure that these products can reach the ports, whether they are northern, east coast or southern coast ports, so that they can access the European market as quickly as possible?

European Union Withdrawal (Consequential Modifications) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Debate between Lord Lexden and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Monday 30th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I want to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for introducing the regulations before us and for the fact that they follow the affirmative procedure, enabling us to have a small debate on them.

In its 31st report, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee devoted just one paragraph to these regulations:

“This is an important technical instrument, necessary to ensure that the statute book operates correctly after Implementation Day.”


It concludes:

“The instrument provides a general gloss to ensure that the correct interpretation of any EU instrument applies. Cabinet Office states that statutory instruments being prepared by other departments in order to implement the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Northern Ireland Protocol, are relying on these glosses.”


I am somewhat confused as to what “gloss” means. To me, if you put a gloss on something, it potentially puts a spin on it. I could not find in the document that this was a term my noble friend’s department used—probably for a very good reason. I would be interested to know what gloss he puts on that interpretation in the report.

Obviously, we discussed these issues at some length during the passage of the two Acts to which my noble friend referred, and the instrument today helpfully sets out the sources of retained European law. One is missing, namely case law from the European Court of Justice, presumably up to the end of January this year but potentially up to the end of December this year. It is not clear to what extent we will have any regard to EU case law as agreed by the European Court of Justice. Obviously, we will not refer cases, because the Government have been very clear about that in the past. However, there may well be an expectation among some companies that feel that they are affected by this statutory instrument that they would have the right to rely on that case law in a UK court. I would be interested to know whether that is true in my noble friend’s view when he comes to sum up.

Another category of EU law on which I questioned my noble friend and his colleagues during the passage of those two Acts, and which particularly interests me, relates to the environment and agriculture generally, where these instruments of EU law were agreed but were not implemented by the end of 31 January 2020. To be honest, I do not have a clue whether they are ambulatory or non-ambulatory, but I would be very interested to know what decisions have been taken in regard to the applications of those instruments, whether they will be applicable to citizens and companies in this country and whether they can rely on them going forward.

Paragraph 2.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, on page 2, helpfully says:

“The interpretation legislation amended by this instrument is not EU law; it is domestic legislation, which is being updated in consequence of”


the two Acts to which my noble friend referred, as he said. Paragraph 6.4 on page 4 sets out retained EU law without, as I say, including what I would consider to be EU law, namely the case law that has been decided during the course of this year. Paragraph 6.7 on page 4 states that the two Acts

“provide temporary powers to make provisions that Ministers consider appropriate in consequence of those Acts.”

In that regard, does my noble friend expect to come back at a future date to repeal other provisions of EU law, if he and his department intend to keep this under review? Paragraph 7.4 states:

“Where there is a dual meaning, the interpretive provision applicable to references to EU legislation that have effect as relevant separation agreement law will apply to the extent that the EU legislation takes effect as relevant separation agreement law.”


Paragraph 7.5 continues:

“These interpretive provisions are needed to ensure that the legislative framework for the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland operates effectively.”


Paragraph 7.7 states that Regulation 3 makes amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

“to provide how existing ambulatory references to EU instruments that will have effect as relevant separation agreement law are to be interpreted after IP Completion Day. Ambulatory references are references to EU instruments that automatically update when the EU instrument is updated.”

I do not intend to use the full time that has been generously allocated to me, but I will end on a general question. With all interpretations of EU law that is now deemed to be retained EU law for UK purposes, in the event of a disagreement, who will interpret the provisions? Will it be the Minister’s department that is the ultimate arbiter, or will recourse to the courts be required? I understand that, probably still, one potential niggle that might be delaying the conclusion of a deal with the EU 27 this week—perhaps he could comment on this—is what the dispute resolution mechanism will be. Is there any update in that regard?

With those few words, I welcome this opportunity to consider the instrument that the Minister was kind enough to set out this afternoon.

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

The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, is having technical difficulties. In the circumstances, we will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Lord Lexden and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

The next speaker on the list, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has withdrawn. I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord. Like him, I was surprised at the level of the penalties for these infringements. I join noble Lords who congratulated and thanked my noble friend the Minister for listening to concerns expressed at an earlier stage of proceedings and bringing forward Amendment 62. I will just ask: what form will the consultation by the CMA with the devolved Administrations take? How long will be allocated to it generally, along with the other bodies that are to be consulted?

Has the CMA taken a policy decision not to have on its board currently, as I read it, any representatives of the devolved Administrations? I notice that Jo Armstrong, for whom I have the highest regard, is represented. She is currently a commissioner with the Water Industry Commission for Scotland with whom I have had the pleasure to work for four or five years. But I do not see that any specific representatives of the devolved Administrations are there. Given the thrust and context of this Bill, it will be interesting to know if there is any policy principle as to why there are not. I know that my noble friend will say that that is a matter for the CMA, but it works under the guidance of the Secretary of State and the department, so I ask him to comment in that regard.

I echo the concerns raised by other noble Lords and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for her Amendments 62A, 63A and 63B. I ask my noble friend to consider to what extent the ask under Article 39 goes much wider than is currently envisaged in, I think, the Enterprise Act that forms the basis for these provisions. Against the background that these are quite substantive penalties, will the Minister be mindful of the debate that we have had, noting, in particular, the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Liddle? Will my noble friend have regard and perhaps pause at this stage and come forward with a further government amendment at Third Reading?

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Lexden and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I will call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, again and hope that she is able to join us this time.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful. I was muted, so I apologise for any inconvenience.

I support Amendment 7 and would like to explain to my noble friend Lord Lansley that this is more than just semantics. “Necessary” has a specific meaning in law, as has been identified by the Law Society of Scotland. Perhaps I should state for the record that I am a non-practising Scottish advocate. Against the background expressed by the Constitution Committee of the House on numerous occasions, in particular on this Bill but also on others, we are seeing an extensive scope of delegated ministerial powers, so it is incumbent on my noble friend the Minister to explain why they are required. By adding “necessary” as well as “appropriate”, we are flagging up to the Government that, in scrutinising the Bill and subsequent regulations, the objective of this legislation will go only so far as is necessary to implement the agreement in question. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept this amendment.

I also wonder whether there has been an oversight in Clause 2(2)(b). The Explanatory Notes define international agreements as follows:

“International trade agreements are agreements between two or more countries aimed at reducing the barriers to trade in goods or services between them.”


For the sake of trade agreements relating to services, not least the right of people to trade services such as legal services, I wonder whether that was an oversight and whether it should be amended to read “free trade agreements and services”.

I also support Amendment 9, which I have signed, because, as stated in the Explanatory Notes, a trade agreement would need to be ratified before regulations could be made to implement it. In most other jurisdictions it is certainly the case that Parliament, and the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, would ratify the agreement. Would my noble friend put my mind at rest that this amendment is not required because that is the legal situation? If it is not, I would see some argument for the need for Amendment 9.

Amendment 10 seeks to apply the provisions of the Bill to trade agreements other than EU rollover trade agreements, allowing it to act as a framework for future trade policy. If the Bill is not to be the framework, it would be helpful if my noble friend took the chance to explain to the Committee what framework the Government intend to use.