Ofcom: Appointment of Chair

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Liddle

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Again, I cannot be drawn on speculation about who may have applied, but the panel in the first round and the new panel both include civil servants and non-civil servants, in line with the governance code.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while these appointments to key bodies should remain in the hands of Ministers, there have to be proper checks and balances and that the candidates put forward to the Minister have to satisfy clear criteria of competence? In this case, will he, first, clearly condemn the fact that someone in government, probably a special adviser, leaked the name that we are talking about to deter other good candidates from applying? That was the purpose. Secondly, will he criticise the Secretary of State for having failed to get Sir Paul Dacre on the list the first time round, then altering the criteria to make it easier for that to happen?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will not join the noble Lord in speculating on the Kremlinology of how the name came out but I agree with the former Commissioner for Public Appointments that it is regrettable that it did. As he has said, this

“appeared to pre-empt the outcome of the competition”

and “risks undermining public confidence”. There is a governance code that governs these public appointments processes. This one has been run in line with it and continues to be so.

Common Rules for Exports (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Liddle

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I do not believe that I have yet spoken in a debate being replied to on behalf of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. I welcome him to his role—although he has been there for some time. I see him as a very capable and grown-up figure. I wish that could be said of the rest of the Government in which he serves.

I am speaking in this debate because I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and this measure came before us a couple of weeks ago. In terms of Great Britain, it seems a perfectly sensible amendment of retained EU law. There is however some uncertainty, which is why I am speaking today, about its implications for Northern Ireland.

Perhaps I may quote from the 29th report of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Paragraph 7 states:

“While we note the Department’s explanation that the Commission could impose export controls or restrictions on Northern Ireland only in very limited circumstances, such as in relation to the movement of endangered species, it is not clear what other circumstances may allow the Commission to exercise its powers. These are issues that the House may wish to explore further, given the sensitivities around future trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.”


That is why we drew the regulations to the special attention of the House.

We have already had a rather shameful episode, in my view, where the Government signed up to the Northern Ireland protocol and then, when they considered it in more detail, decided that they did not like its terms. As a result, they attempted something which, as we saw in the Divisions last night, this House regarded as a gross breach of international law to change provisions of the protocol which they did not like. What I am seeking today is an assurance as to what exactly are the circumstances in which this bit of EU law will apply in Northern Ireland, and whether the Government will give an absolute undertaking that they will not seek in any future piece of legislation to override these provisions. Given what we have seen in the last year, I think that is a perfectly reasonable request.

The Minister rightly drew our attention to article 6 of the protocol—I have it open in front of me. He quoted point 1 of article 6, which says:

“Nothing … shall prevent the UK from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom’s internal market.”


It goes on to say that any measures which

“restrict the exportation of goods shall only be applied to trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom to the extent strictly required by any international obligations”—

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but the time limit for speeches in this debate is three minutes.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

That is even given the very few speakers in the debate, which I do not understand. I will sum up in a moment. So, the protocol speaks of

“the extent strictly required by any international obligations of the Union”,

but it goes on to say that, despite Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom, the applicable EU legislation would apply in Northern Ireland. What would that mean?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord once again but we are very tight on time. I am afraid the noble Lord will have to conclude his remarks.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I conclude my remarks, but I hope that we do not get into legal problems similar to those we have seen already.

Students’ Return to Universities

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Liddle

Thursday 1st October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his welcome for what is contained in the Statement. He is absolutely right: as I say, universities should be a sociable experience. People learn not just in lecture halls but in discussions with their fellow students and those around them. We have been providing guidance to HE providers to make sure that people can enjoy as normal and fulfilling a university experience as possible at the moment, while keeping themselves and those around them safe.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I should declare a lapsed interest as, until midnight, I was chair of council of Lancaster University. Does the noble Lord recognise the enormous efforts that universities have made to provide a Covid-secure environment for their students and, in particular, to sustain face-to-face teaching, which I believe to be the essence of the university experience? Can he explain why, to the latest knowledge I have, there is a very serious weakness in the provision of testing facilities on campuses? At Lancaster, we have been promised the possibility of a mobile unit in something like 10 days’ time, which would be on campus for a couple of days. If we are to sustain this Covid-secure environment, we need more action on testing.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I congratulate the noble Lord on the completion of his term as pro-vice chancellor at Lancaster. He will be a tough act to follow, but I see that my right honourable friend—as he would be if he were still in another place—Alistair Burt is going to give following in his footsteps his best shot. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we want to see face-to-face teaching where that is safe and possible. Universities are doing a blend of online and face-to-face, depending on the courses and the circumstances, and on the public health needs in their locality. We are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including where there are outbreaks, and prioritising at-risk groups. But we are working closely with universities so that we can make sure that they are keeping staff and students as safe as possible.