Industrial Strategy

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, not just for securing this debate, but for a fantastic introduction. He is absolutely right. As we have heard from across your Lordships’ House, the case for a new industrial strategy, one that works in partnership with business, unions and government, is overwhelming.

I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rosenfield, on his maiden speech. I agree with him that there is huge opportunity across the UK, not just in London and the south-east, to develop an industrial strategy. I echo his warm words about Alistair Darling, a mutual friend of many of us on this side, and his family. I thank him for that. I hope he enjoys his many years in your Lordships’ House.

We are a country full of talented people and businesses, with ingenuity and ideas in every town and city, but we cannot meet our vast challenges alone, as individuals or businesses. It requires a national focus and effort that has been sorely lacking over recent years. We have some key economic strengths across the UK: our world-class universities, our thriving life sciences sector—as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, who is not in his place, talked about—advanced manufacturing clusters, creative industries, and many more.

Yet, despite our enormous potential, the UK is set to have the lowest growth in the G7, having suffered years of low investment relative to our neighbours. Our productivity levels remain stubbornly low and, as a result, workers have seen no growth in real pay since 2010, leaving families exposed to the current cost of living crisis. A country such as Britain should not be looking at a future of low growth and poor productivity. The defining mission of the next Labour Government will be to restore that growth.

A co-ordinated, cross-sectoral approach, with policy consistency so that businesses and individuals can make long-term decisions and invest, is vital. The emphasis must lie on unpacking and refining an industrial strategy within a comprehensive framework, as the title of this debate sets out. This Government said that they would achieve their plan through a focus on policies across three core pillars of growth: infrastructure, skills and innovation. These Benches agree, but it is time to transit from words into action. If we have the opportunity to serve and govern after the next election, we will foster community collaboration to drive positive change across Britain’s industrial landscape.

An industrial strategy can play a crucial role in supporting the broader fabric of British society. Under the coalition Government, Vince Cable continued some of the work that new Labour had put in motion, but this was jettisoned after the 2015 general election. As my noble friend Lady Donaghy said, in 2017 Theresa May’s Government published an industrial strategy and established the Industrial Strategy Council. However, since 2019 there has been little serious attempt at any industrial strategy; the 2017 industrial strategy was set aside and the council disbanded. The challenges and opportunities ahead make it essential that Labour reverses this inconsistency and pursues a serious and strategic approach. Our lack of progress as a nation has encountered serious challenges, with the impact of Brexit in particular serving as a major obstacle.

At the core of implementing Labour’s industrial plans is a commitment to make Brexit work by re-establishing connection and engagement with the EU to support UK industry. The last Labour Government’s early intervention in renewable energy technologies supported large-scale renewable electricity generation and led to the expansion of wind-generated power. Labour’s cultivation of the life sciences sector when we were last in government was crucial to ensuring that it is now one of the leading industries. Just two days ago, the Labour Front Bench launched a new plan for the future of life sciences. This underscores the urgency of re-evaluating our industrial strategy to foster sustainable growth.

Jonathan Reynolds, Labour’s shadow Secretary of State, when presenting Labour’s industrial strategy, said that fostering collaboration with small businesses and adopting a national government approach representing smaller and larger businesses is critical. Such inclusive measures can contribute to a more comprehensive and effective approach to advancing the nation’s industrial landscape. Labour will provide policy consistency by placing an industrial strategy council on a statutory footing. This would help to end the farce of long-term plans that do not survive the political cycle, as we have heard, and which make it difficult for businesses to take strategic decisions about their future direction. It would instead offer the certainty needed to increase investment in British business, people and places.

Labour has based its industrial strategy on four missions: delivering clean power by 2030; harnessing data for public good; caring for the future; and building a more resilient economy. Collaborating with organisations such as the British Business Bank can effectively support entrepreneurs and business owners. Addressing disparities by strategically targeting areas in need of industrialisation, such as empty high streets, can play a key role. This includes investing in areas to transform them, with thriving businesses and creative, vibrant communities. In creating an industrial strategy for Britain, considering environmental outcomes is paramount, as my noble friend Lord Davies and a number of other noble Lords have said. We are currently facing one of the worst G7 economic growth rates. The Labour Party aims not only to revitalise the industry but to prioritise climate change and environmental concerns.

The war in Ukraine has driven up energy prices, leaving the UK set to have the highest inflation in the G7. As part of our mission, we plan to boost offshore wind capacity by investing in key ports on the Forth, Tay, Humber and in the north-east of Scotland. This commitment to clean power not only aligns with environmental goals but has the potential to create well-paid nationwide jobs. As we have heard a few times this afternoon, Labour’s commitment on the UK’s broader digital economy underscores our focus on fostering collaboration and inclusivity.

The lack of resilience in the economy can have widespread consequences. The current cost of living crisis highlights the importance of developing more resilient supply chains to mitigate the impact of such challenges on industry and the lives of individuals. Our nations need a Government who can provide certainty and clarity. Achieving prosperity through partnership is key to our economic revival. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Negotiating Objectives for a Free Trade Agreement with India

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I join others in paying my gratitude and appreciation to my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and her committee for producing another balanced and insightful report, which forms the basis of our debate here.

The importance of the free trade agreement with Australia was rightly acknowledged, as it marked our first outing into the post-Brexit world, but negotiations with India will represent opportunities and challenges of a different order of magnitude. Last month, India celebrated 75 years of independence from Britain, which made last week’s announcement that it has overtaken the UK as the world’s fifth-largest economy particularly pertinent. The world’s largest democracy is set to become the third-largest economy by 2031, yet it already has the third-highest greenhouse gas emissions across the planet.

Given this context of importance, it is essential that Parliament is involved, consulted and engaged at all stages, ensuring that we set checks and a balanced framework for future FTAs. As we have heard in this debate, that has not happened. It is difficult to isolate these negotiations, as we heard, from the backdrop of the geopolitical events that shadow them. The Government have prided themselves on their role in leading talks to tackle climate change and global leadership in supporting Ukraine since the Russian invasion. These negotiations must not undermine this reputation; they should be seen as a unique opportunity to influence and enhance our global engagement.

Reading the vague and minimalistic nature of the Government’s negotiating objectives regarding the environment and climate is disappointing in the least. Estimates that an FTA with India would increase greenhouse gas emissions are not surprising; still, it is of concern that there is no mention of mitigating measures and that current projections do not account for transport emissions and carbon leakage. This latter issue is of huge significance as the offshoring of agricultural production to more carbon-intensive countries will devalue ambitions to limit domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Will the Minister therefore ensure that emission projections are recalculated so that they account for carbon leakage and transport emissions, because only then will we see the true figures?

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as we have heard from many speakers, India has failed to support the British-led sanctions. It has seen its trade with Russia increase, abstained on a UN motion condemning the invasion and, last month, participated in a joint military exercise with Russia and China. Given this, can the Minister explain why Ukraine and the situation there is not mentioned at all—not once—in the negotiating objectives?

In a world of rising authoritarianism, disregard for the rule of law and persecution of vulnerable minorities, there are questions over the direction of the current Government in Delhi. Recent reports have suggested a rise in human rights abuses and breaches of academic freedom. In 2021, the International Trade Union Confederation rated India on the second-lowest rank on its global rights index. As stated by Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC:

“Suppressing trade unions, forced labour, child labour and other workers’ rights abuses are all widespread in India … A UK-India trade deal could encourage companies to outsource more jobs from the UK to India, leading a race to the bottom.”


She continued:

“The UK government should be using its leverage on the global stage to promote decent work”


and decent working conditions.

It is conceivable that climate change, India’s relationship with Russia and these alleged human rights abuses could form a significant part of the negotiations but, despite persistent calls across the Committee here today and from many organisations feeding into the consultations, the Government have yet to produce an overarching trade policy, making it difficult to determine the importance attached to each of these issues in the negotiations. Consequently, can I first reinforce calls for the Government to produce an overarching trade policy? Secondly, I ask the Minister to clarify whether he believes that any of these three issues—India’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gases, its stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and reports around human rights—will be given any priority in future negotiations.

Predictions that an FTA with India could lead to a 0.22% increase in GDP may not meet some of those post-Brexit expectations. A sector with particular potential to benefit is Scottish whisky. Despite the 150% tariff currently applied to imports, India is the second-largest export market for Scottish whisky. Despite this, Scottish whisky constitutes only a 2% share of the Indian whisky market. The Scotch Whisky Association has warned that, as we have heard, many non-tariff barriers to trade, at both national and state level, need to be resolved so that business can flourish.

As yet, the risks to British farmers of a UK-India free trade agreement have not received the media coverage of the equivalent Australia and New Zealand agreements. The lack of regulation and the enigmatic nature of India’s agriculture mean these threats are less transparent, but they are just as real. Without the tightening of Indian law and regulation, British farmers could likely face unfair competition brought about by significantly lower standards and state subsidies. For example, we have heard that carrots grown in India are allowed to contain 500 times the amount of the fungicide captan, which is a known human carcinogen, than is allowed in the UK. Clearly, this raises future questions on the erosion of standards and consumer protections.

Another concern is state subsidies. In December 2021, the WTO ruled that India violated international trade rules concerning unfair subsidies provided to sugar exporters. This was highlighted by the NFU president, Minette Batters, who has reiterated the need to promote fair and equitable trading in the event of a future deal. These comments came after her previous comments on the Australia deal, on which she said:

“In particular, it is disappointing that the UK government has capitulated to Australian demands to time-limit any safeguards for sensitive sectors.”


Current government estimates already concede that a trade deal would see a decline in domestic agricultural output of up to £10 million. Given this, can the Minister say what will be done to help British farmers and the communities they support and what safeguarding measures will be implemented if disputes over subsidies and standards arise?

I think we can all agree on the importance of and the challenges posed by these negotiations. As was dealt with perfectly by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Kerr, it should follow that engagement with Parliament, the devolved Administrations and other relevant bodies should be extensive. Unfortunately, this is not apparent. The devolved Administrations have raised concerns relating to the Government’s lack of consultation and reluctance to share information.

Government transparency on the content of the negotiations also remains an issue. The update produced following the fifth and latest round of the UK-India negotiations contained a meagre 114 words that were vague and generic. I went back to look at the first, second, third and fourth joint outcome statements—I do not know if other noble Lords have done so—and they are virtually the same. It has been virtually the same statement for the last four sets. The first joint outcome statement is the only one that has a little more detail about some of the areas that were discussed and negotiated. I would like to know why the content of the first one, which had a little more detail, was not continued in future statements. It is still not enough, but at least it would be a step.

Perhaps most alarming is the self-imposed deadline of 24 October that looms over these talks. As discussions began in January, only a little over nine months have been set aside to conclude an agreement. By comparison, the recently signed interim trade deal between India and Australia lasted for nine rounds of negotiation between 2011 and 2015, followed by a further six months of detailed negotiations through 2021 and 2022.

As set out by the International Agreements Committee, India has been a notoriously difficult negotiator and has a history of protectionism and paper-thin deals, not to mention relatively low tariffs for its exports compared to ours. This considered, such a short negotiating window alludes to significant concessions being made, the agreement being limited to an interim agreement or a combination of both. As pointed out by the IAC report, this will likely make a more comprehensive deal much more challenging to achieve in the long term. Anxieties over the disproportionate amount of time allocated to talks are shared by trade unions, the devolved Administrations, businesses and industry leaders who have urged the Government to

“hold out for a commercially meaningful and comprehensive deal, even if doing so means that the self-imposed deadline of Diwali is not met.”

As my noble friend Lady Hayter said in opening, we share the Government’s ambition for trade deals. Given the broad consensus acknowledging the significance of these negotiations, we urge the Government to take a pragmatic approach and not to have any short-term deadlines, ensuring that the UK’s long-term position is not jeopardised.

Elections Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

Amendment 106 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 106A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.

[Noble Lords]

Amendment 106ZA.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Well spotted. The amendments are the wrong way round on Today’s Lists—apologies. The Marshalled List takes priority over the printed list so we will go back and take Amendment 106ZA.

Amendment 106ZA

Moved by

Elections Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 17th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

But timing is of the essence, and we are being pushed. There is a reason why this House’s scrutiny of the Bill is so important. How long did the other place take to scrutinise this clause? No time at all; in the two hours allocated to the Bill, this clause was not included. We can see from Hansard that they had no debate on these clauses, but it is a fundamental issue that affects our democracy. I know the Minister is concerned about the time we may take over these issues, but I assure him that I will stay up all night and all day until we get proper consideration of these issues. It is not right that this measure is pushed through without proper consultation and consideration. In the meantime, I will not push my Motion to a vote.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord beg leave to withdraw the amendment?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

It is a clause stand part debate.

Elections Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Tuesday 15th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking to my Amendment 25. In this group there is also Amendment 25A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, which is very similar. These two amendments will echo quite a lot of the debate we have had over the last two groups, and I completely echo the words of my noble friend Lord Collins, in his response to the previous group, about many of the concerns we have about this clause.

As we know, Clause 18 concerns notional expenditure on behalf of candidates and others. In the debate we have just had, my noble friend Lord Collins, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and others drew attention to the detail of what this clause would mean, how it would potentially work and how election law has changed over time—and not just law. Elections have become more sophisticated and more money is being spent, so we really need to make sure that in future we conduct elections in the right and proper way. The Elections Bill needs to be able to provide that integrity and reassurance as we move forward.

Specifically, my Amendment 25 says:

“The Secretary of State must publish new guidance to candidates on notional expenditure within the period of 12 months”.


Amendment 25A from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, suggests:

“The Electoral Commission must publish new guidance to candidates”.


To be honest, I do not really mind which; I just think it is important that such guidance is published.

I read the debate in the other place on this part of the Bill. Introducing this clause, the Minister, Kemi Badenoch, said that it

“makes an important clarification to our political finance rules”.

She went on to explain—as did our Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—that this came from the Supreme Court decision in 2018 after it was

“determined that the rules on notional expenditure for candidates did not contain a test of authorisation”

and

“there were concerns among parties and campaigners that candidates could be liable to report benefits in kind that they did not know about, but could be seen to have benefited from.”

Obviously, there has been a lot of discussion about what that meant in South Thanet and how that has had an impact on political behaviour during elections since.

What came over in particular from the last debate, and is important when looking at what we are talking about now around the new guidance, is the way in which campaigning has increasingly become pressurised on marginal seats. As my noble friend Lord Collins said, that is the case with all parties. He rightly referenced the fact that political income is an area we need to really look at—where it comes from, how our donations are managed and who provides them. This is an area where, if we are not careful, the behaviour of political parties could come into disrepute. I am not pointing the finger at any party, just saying that we need to be very careful around this when drawing up new election law.

Minister Badenoch went on to say that this is why the Government want to make it

“clear that candidates only need to report as notional expenditure benefits in kind—property, goods, services and facilities that are given to the candidate at a discount, or for free—that they have used themselves, or which they or their agent have authorised, directed or encouraged someone else to use on the candidate’s behalf”,

so that “clarity” is provided

“to candidates and their agents on the rules that apply to notional expenditure.”—[Official Report, Commons, Elections Bill Committee, 26/10/21; cols. 299-300.]

In the Minister’s introduction, and later in the debate, the word “clarity” was used a couple of times. If we are talking about clarity, guidance is important. People need to know when any new rules are brought in. As other noble Lords have said, this is adding to complexity. As a candidate or an agent, you need to know exactly what is expected of you, and it needs to be easy to understand.

During a debate on election expenditure in the other place, Craig Mackinlay—who, as we are all aware, was the candidate and is now the MP for South Thanet—agreed with Andrew Bridgen MP that it was worrying that currently

“a candidate in an election could be liable under the law for spending on his behalf that he neither authorised, nor was even aware of.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/19; col. 690.]

I have been a candidate a number of times in local and parliamentary elections—and, once upon a time, in European elections, but of course that will never happen again—and other noble Lords have talked about this. When you are a candidate, you rely an awful lot on your agent. As my noble friend Lord Grocott said, not many people actually want to be an agent; I have managed to dodge it so far. This clarity, this information, about what the guidance will mean and how they are supposed to operate within any new laws is incredibly important.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s response to this part of the Bill. The Minister said that the proposed changes in the Bill are broadly welcomed but, as other noble Lords said, there were concerns around this. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, this included moving forward with clarity—that word again. We need to know where we all stand. The report said:

“The Government’s response to the CSPL report on electoral finance regulation provides no indication of which of its recommendations (not already included in the Bill) the Government is likely to adopt (via amendment), prioritise for consultation or when or how the Government proposes to give legislative effect to recommendations that will not be included in the Bill. The Government should give clarity on its next steps in this regard.”


It would be helpful to have further information. The Government responded to this and said:

“The Elections Bill is bringing forward the key changes to the regulation of expenditure we need to make now, and it already delivers on several of the recommendations made by the CSPL report. The CSPL report puts forward many recommendations that deserve full consideration”.


I would be interested to hear from the Minister which recommendations the Government were referring to. Their response added that

“further work must be done to consider the implications and practicalities of any further changes to complex electoral law.”

It would be helpful if the Minister could update us on any further work in this regard following the Government’s response. If he is unable to provide that information today, it would be very helpful to have it in writing. The other thing that came through from the evidence to the committee was the response by Professor Fisher, who again considered that the term “encouraged by” could lead to confusion. We had a previous debate on this and I think most noble Lords who spoke agreed that “encouraged by” did not provide the clarity that we need. It is used seven times in Clause 18, scattered all the way through it.

Again, we need to make sure that the rules are understood in order for them to be properly complied with, because this is where we came unstuck before. People did not really understand them, which is why we had the issues around Thanet. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that if we are not careful we will constantly be adding complexity in the Bill when what we need in electoral law is exactly the opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about the importance of having consensus when we are looking to change the law on how we conduct our elections.

My amendment would mean that the Secretary of State—and the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, would mean that the Electoral Commission—would have to publish new guidance to candidates on the changes. It is important that everyone understands any new responsibilities because we cannot have misunderstanding or misinterpretation. It is not fair on candidates and very much not fair on their agents.

Amendment 30B in the name of my noble friend Lord Collins looks at the threshold for payments in respect of any election expenses. We suggest that the threshold would increase. Section 73 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which is the section on payment of expenses through election agents, states that:

“Every payment made by an election agent in respect of any election expenses shall, except where less than £20, be vouched for by a bill stating the particulars or by a receipt.”


The Minister may be able to clarify this, but my understanding is that this figure of £20 has not been updated since 1985. Clearly, £20 was worth quite a bit more back in 1985 than it is today.

This is a just a probing amendment to suggest to the Government that they could have another look at the RPA in this area. If you are increasing spending in other areas, this is a simple thing that could be done and our suggestion of £65 in the amendment is really just intended to be a starting point for discussion. Sadly, there is not an awful lot you can buy these days for only £20. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 25 and 25A appear to be alternatives.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, this debate has shown that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is definitely right that we need guidance on this crucial issue of notional expenditure. Many of us think that we do not necessarily need a change in the law, given that the courts have clarified the existing position and we need further guidance about what those decisions by the Supreme Court and Southwark Crown Court mean in practice for candidates and agents.

I believe that the appropriate body to provide such guidance is the Electoral Commission. That is partly because it can obtain legal advice independent from that of the Government; the commission can obtain advice about the meaning of the law that may be different from the interpretation of the Government of the day. It can advise all parties impartially and fairly. The Government’s view is most likely to coincide entirely with how the party presently in power would like the law to be interpreted, and that is not a good thing in a democracy.

Covid-19: Co-ordination with Devolved Administrations

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, there are many discussions, and thoughtful decisions are made by the people responsible in all the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, I have no doubt. However, public health is a devolved matter in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and those Administrations have the authority to make their own decisions.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, for families spread out across the UK who want to plan their summer holidays—I declare an interest as I am heading up to Scotland over the summer—surely the rules across the four nations should be the same wherever possible. All four nations have previously said they would follow the data, not the dates, but suddenly our Prime Minister seems to be driven more by dates than statistics. With this in mind, can the Minister expand a bit more on the discussions he talked about between the four nations? Are we looking at a further joint communiqué? September last year feels a long time ago.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Lord and many citizens of the United Kingdom about the future and how we move forward. The Prime Minister made a considered statement last week and will make another statement on Monday about the next steps forward as he sees them. Throughout the crisis we have been more aligned than we are apart. There have been scores of calls between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the First Ministers in the three Administrations.

Emergency Covid Contracts

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, have withdrawn, so after the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we are learning more day by day, are we not? In addition to a VIP fast lane for contracts, we know that Health Ministers had at least 27 undeclared meetings, including with potential contractors, some of whom then went on to win handsome contracts. Why did these meetings take place without civil servants being present, both to advise and to minute? How much did the Permanent Secretary know about this and what advice was given? Most importantly, has this practice now stopped?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am advised that the claims that have been made in this respect are completely false and that there was in fact no high-priority lane for testing suppliers. All offers of testing went through the same robust assurance checks, and there was no separate so-called fast-track process—that is the clear advice that I have been given. Any discussions relating to government business were fed back to officials in the usual way. It does not matter what I think, but I assure the House that we as a Government take the impartiality and integrity of government procurement processes extremely seriously. When I say it does not matter what I think, I am saying that I think that and the whole Government think that, so I think I can set the noble Baroness’s fears at ease on that score.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, the time allocated for this Question has elapsed, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie.

Vice-President of the European Commission

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Thursday 29th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend. As I made clear yesterday, I hope that we can now begin to move forward on a new chapter together, as Europeans. We want a relationship based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals. That is what we have always wanted. I note that, a few days ago, the EU head of mission said:

“We are still in the process of accepting that the UK is no longer a member of the European Union.”


I hope that that process of adjustment can be completed as soon as possible, that the language on the EU side can be toned down and that we can move forward together.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, in the Minister’s recent statement following the meeting with Vice-President Šefčovič, can he clarify what the “outstanding issues” are, what “positive momentum” was established and, more crucially, what the remaining “difficult issues” are? The statement said that Vice-President Šefčovič

“agreed there should be intensified contacts at all levels in the coming weeks.”

Can the Minister expand?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, quite a large number of issues are on the table between us and the European Union. We classify them differently, but the EU has talked of a number in the 20s, which is reasonable. We hope we are working on a joint programme to resolve some of them, but we have different perceptions of the problems. Some of the outstanding issues are SPS and food standards, pharmaceuticals, VAT and other technical arrangements. We are working intensively, at all levels, to move positions closer together and find solutions.

UK-EU Trade

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I am always happy to meet anybody to talk about the issues relating to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. We have, of course, pulled out all the stops to help businesses deal with the changes to our trading relationship with the EU, whether they are operating in these fields, whether they are SMEs or whether they are working in the agri-food or any other area.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, new figures released last week, as the Minister touched on, show that UK exports to the EU have plummeted by 40% since the transition period. Do Her Majesty’s Government take responsibility for that and, more importantly, will the Minister elaborate on the plans to rectify that reduction in trade?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, there are several potential factors affecting trade with the European Union, as well as any direct impact coming from the TCA. There is clear evidence of stockpiling at the end of last year, which will of course affect the flow of trade, and obviously there is the general economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic, which has depressed economic activity in many ways. That is why we must be cautious before drawing any firm conclusions from the January figures.

Budget Statement

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Friday 12th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Chancellor’s claim that the Budget will support business and build our future economy seems somewhat fanciful with the raising of corporation tax, the collapse of exports to the EU, precious little action to improve our low productivity levels and the axing of the industrial strategy. I hope the Minister will explain the extraordinary decision to abolish the Industrial Strategy Council. Make UK, which represents manufacturers, says it raises a genuine fear that the critical part that companies can play in the economic recovery is no longer regarded as important. What does the Minister have to say to that?

On public finances, the Government say they cannot afford to give nurses a decent pay rise, yet they have managed to squander billions of pounds on management consultants, fly-by-night companies and friends of Ministers. This week’s PAC report on test and track is illuminating: hugely costly, with an overreliance on consultants and temporary staff, and no clear evidence with which to judge its overall effectiveness. One figure that we do know is that we have the highest death rate per million of population of any country in the world. Meanwhile, there is no decent pay rise for nurses, nor any plans for the NHS to treat the huge backlog of patients.

As for social care, the Chancellor’s complacency is quite extraordinary. There is no lifeline for our struggling social care sector, with the long-promised White Paper yet to surface. So the level of unmet need increases, the pressure on unpaid carers grows stronger, the supply of care providers diminishes and the strain on the care workforce continues, yet the Chancellor is silent. Will the Minister respond?

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Mair. Can the noble Lord please unmute?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, can the noble Lord unmute? Otherwise, we will move to the next speaker and return to him.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Let us try one more time. No? I call the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra; we will come back to the noble Lord, Lord Mair, as soon as we have reconnected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in many areas, lockdowns and home-working have fostered a growing sense of connection with local communities. That is evidenced in an outpouring of community and voluntary activity, as well as support for small local businesses. These businesses have a kind of built-in agility, which has enabled them to repurpose and refocus in many instances.

However, the Government were dangerously slow to recognise the role that local government could play during the pandemic. They must not make the same mistake again with regard to the rebuild afterwards. The finances of local government were parlous before; they are now in a very dangerous state. Local government cannot keep postponing the reviews that need to take place to put its finances back on a sustainable footing.

The so-called third tier of local government, the town and parish councils, face a particular set of problems. They have been hugely active during the pandemic but have received no help from government with their direct costs. Throughout the country, only three principal councils have given money to their towns and parishes. I very much support the National Association of Local Councils, which wishes to see a dedicated and targeted package of support for the small local councils or indeed third-tier councils, some of which are quite big—in major towns, for example. Local councils must get the support that they need to do the work that they will need to do going forward.

The Government have announced a £150 million community ownership fund, but local councils are not allowed to bid for it. This is hugely disappointing, given their track record in protecting and supporting community assets such as libraries, post offices and parks. Finally, can the Minister say what the involvement of local councils will be in delivering projects under the new levelling-up fund? Communities everywhere have pulled together during this pandemic. Let us make sure that we help them to continue.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I now call the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and we will then try the noble Lord, Lord Mair, again.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

I, too, warmly welcome our five new noble Lords. I was lucky enough to read economics at Cambridge in the late 1950s, when the influence of the late and great economist John Maynard Keynes and his followers was very high. I have always taken the view thereafter that the first rule of economics is, in all circumstances, to maximise real economic growth. As a politician, the second rule that I have always advocated—I think that Keynes would also have agreed with this—is to make the distribution of the rewards of growth as fair as practically possible. I therefore support the Budget because it has made some real progress in both these areas.

In particular, it began to deliver on the levelling-up agenda. The brutal truth is that several regions of the United Kingdom have now been overtaken in GDP per head by countries such as Slovenia, Poland and Lithuania, which spent decades under the rule of communism. Some people worry about the huge debt that we have piled up to achieve these ends; I do not. Currently, the public debt is about 100% of our annual GDP. If you look over the long history of the UK, that is not far from the average. Nor is there a big problem with financing it while we have an independent Bank of England, which can, in the end, just print the money. The only factor to keep a beady eye on, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out, is inflation. That is certainly a threat.

My only doubt about the Budget is over the proposed rise in corporation tax, which is also a reservation on the part of the Office for Budget Responsibility. I appreciate that the Chancellor is giving a super-deduction of 130% for those who invest, but this will last only two years. He might have been better to leave the rate at 19%, which compares favourably with our major rivals. Alternatively, he might consider extending the super-deduction for the full Parliament. We have a steep hill to climb as a result of Covid and Brexit—a double whammy—but the Chancellor has had a good shot at getting to first base.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I call again the noble Lord, Lord Mair.