Canada-UK Trade Deal

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I encourage the noble Lord to distinguish between comments of substance and those that are made purely as a negotiating tactic. We have closely observed the recent agreement in Asia. Our priority is negotiating to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership next year, which is a much deeper and richer agreement.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it could be suggested that “walking away” from negotiations could be a government tactic, given that it was the no-deal temporary tariff published by the UK that prompted the Canadians to further consider our intentions. The UK has now published its permanent tariff regime. If we are hopeful of a deal, we may have to scrutinise this in short order. How many of these tariffs is Canada currently disputing?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

It would not be appropriate for me to go into the detail of ongoing negotiations. But I assure noble Lords that talks are at an advanced stage and I am confident that they will be concluded satisfactorily.

Common Rules for Exports (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this short debate has flagged up a number of critical areas. I have a degree of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said about the time that we have; nevertheless, within this short period, all noble Lords have raised appropriate questions and issues.

I want to use most of the time that I have to address points that have already been raised by noble Lords, but I want to close on the wider issue of border preparedness, because we are now a matter of weeks and days from operating an international border outside the European Union and it is valid to raise more recent concerns.

On the valid points already raised, it seems that a lot of the consideration has been about how the UK and the European Union will agree or come to a working relationship on how international obligations are defined for exports from Northern Ireland to GB.

We support this measure as the corrective that it is meant to be, but the concerns that have been raised about the impact on Northern Ireland are valid. Let me ask first about notification. We are replicating a cascading process under the original European regulation whereby the Commission was notified of potential areas of market concern about the shortage of certain goods. That notification would then go to the Council and the European Parliament. As has been asked in this debate, what is the equivalent of notification to Parliament under these elements? Why is there a difference in Regulations 5 and 6 so far as the procedures are concerned?

Given that we are replicating the potential acknowledgement that certain geographical areas could have shortages compared to others, there is nothing in this measure which would allow for consultation of devolved Administrations. The Government have used the example of medical equipment for PPE because it is the most recent, but it could be very broad so far as the potentials are concerned; for example, raw agricultural products or, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, mentioned, components as part of intermediate trade. That can have a differential effect, whether it is in the north-east of Scotland or the south-west of Wales, but there is no element of consultation. Before the Government bring forward orders, can the Minister commit that there would be consultation with devolved Administrations, because certain areas may need certain protections?

This brings me on to the position of the Government with regard to the continuing authority of the European Commission in Northern Ireland. It was very interesting before coming to this Committee to read the report of the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons and that of the European Union Committee in this House. The latter was interesting in that it highlighted the Government’s view—repeated by the Minister—that the continuing authority of the Commission to bring Northern Ireland under the existing EU regulation is strictly limited to a number of procedures relating to specific international obligations binding on the UK and the EU under the Northern Ireland protocol. Can the Minister state where these are outlined? The committee rightly asked for further information about how the Government define these “limited number of procedures”. It cited CITES and those regarding endangered species, but this is not necessarily the position of the European Union. As referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, the European Union’s position as set out in its technical note is that

“all goods leaving Northern Ireland to either a third country or Great Britain are subject to prohibitions and restrictions applicable to exports under relevant Union law, without prejudice to Article 6(1) of the Protocol”.

The definition that the European Union is using is different from that used by the UK, which could bring about certain interesting tensions and is likely to be very difficult.

The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee report asked for further clarification with regards to ongoing regulations and Northern Ireland. Not only do we have the successor regulations; the House of Commons committee report asked the Government for further information about “ongoing” changes that the European Union would make in regard to the specific regulation that we are inheriting. There is nothing in the mechanism that indicates that there should be an ongoing working relationship if the European Union changes its definitions. Under one interpretation, the European Union could consider its obligations under the WTO in that light.

In the final few seconds, I will refer to the National Audit Office report. It is a sobering independent analysis of the major problems that businesses will face on 1 January. I hope that the Minister can provide greater reassurance that the issues raised in that NAO report will be considerably addressed. They have not been, so far. The clock is ticking. Businesses are waiting for clarity. So far, they have not got it and they desperately need it.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 2nd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I think we are just going to have to differ on this one. We do not want to be returning to the House to create unnecessary difficulties and disagreements in the future; we want to ensure that, before any of these difficulties arise, we have put in place, as in the rest of the Bill, a framework that covers the whole of the United Kingdom to regulate how we will manage and control these issues in the future. That is all we are seeking to do. I understand the points that noble Lords are making. There are differently regulated professions in some parts of the UK already; we accept that and that the status quo is there, but we think that, in future, these things are best regulated on a UK-wide basis, and we want no new barriers to trade to emerge.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this has nothing to do with powers repatriated from the European Union; it has everything to do with our internal United Kingdom approach. When was the last time that a professional body regulated by law was established where the Government considered there to be major barriers across the United Kingdom?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord will be well aware that there is European directive on this subject, and mutual recognition of professional qualifications, so, even in the EU law space, it is accepted that the nations of the EU have different ways of recognising different professional qualifications. I commend Amendments 107 and 108 to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, referred to a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, following an earlier discussion. I have not received a copy of that. Could all the letters sent following these debates be circulated to all Members of the Committee?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, had it.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I think all speakers in these debates ought to get them. Unless, of course, it is a very private letter to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—in which case we will leave that between the two of them—all noble Lords should see all the letters that arise from these debates.

When I started thinking about this group, I thought that there were two divergent views, but they are not as divergent as I thought. It looked as if some amendments wanted the OIM, which is an observatory rather than an office, to be almost part of BEIS, with little independence. Our view is to the contrary. Amendment 113 in my name, which is obviously probing, signals that the CMA should not be advising the department but using its powers to intervene as necessary. That did not mean that it should not send messages to the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, did when, as its chair, he sought more powers for the CMA to intervene. He wanted a proper consumer duty adding to it. The amendment does not say that it should not advise the department but makes the point that it should not be subservient to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, and to agree with the thrust of his comments. This is the last, relatively small, group on the general concept of the consultation, before we move specifically on to what we would expect to see of the OIM’s relationship with the devolved Administrations. It is important, I think, because of Amendment 171 in the name of the noble and learned Lord. The Government’s ability to make considerable changes, through regulation, to any part of this legislation—which could have far-reaching implications for the devolved Administrations—without any requirement for consulting is worrying.

We can look at what is currently under way with regard to consultation. I reflected on the Minister’s previous response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and my noble friend on the regulation of professional services and consultation. I ask the question because the consultation on The Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Regulation of Professions: Call for Evidence, which closed on 23 October—so a very recent closure—was a call for evidence to ask for views on whether there should be a UK-wide system of regulation for professional services. On page 15, under “Future considerations” in the section on the internal market, it says:

“determine whether or not there would be merit in having a UK-wide, cross-sectoral strategy for the regulation of professions (potentially underpinned by regulatory principles).”

But in this Bill we are debating it, because the Government did not wait until the closure of that consultation process before bringing legislation forward and say that this is now absolutely necessary, whereas the consultation by the business department, which closed on 23 October, simply requested people’s views.

I would be grateful if the Government would publish the responses to that consultation and update the House on the consultations on the White Paper which had been requested. I understand that the Government indicated that they would publish those consultations by 9 October, so an update on the status of that would be helpful. The Government’s ability to make regulations without consulting the devolved Administrations, under the last schedule of the Bill, does require consultation. I very much support the thrust of the noble and learned Lord’s amendments.

Turning to Amendments 114 and 141, I note that the Government’s proposal, relating to the CMA and the OIM, in this Bill is that before an appointment to the CMA board, as a chair of an OIM panel, or as a member of a panel, there must be a consultation with the devolved Administrations—so far, so good. But there is no requirement for the CMA then to consult on the establishment of a task group or a panel, so I wonder what the Government’s thinking is on that. The Government will consult the devolved Administrations on an appointment to a panel, but then there is no requirement for that panel to consult before it starts its work.

On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, recognised in the previous group, some of the work of the OIM in these areas will touch on very sensitive issues, with regard to the devolved powers or the decisions. Given that under this legislation there will be the ability to disapply devolved legislation—legislation in the competence of any of the home nations—there being no requirement to consult before that work commences is highly problematic. The legislation goes further to say that the CMA, after a request, “may” provide a report on proposals by one of the Governments for legislation within the UK; but, of course, if it may, it may not. If it does not consult after a request has been made by one of the nations—one of the Governments—in the UK, there is no ability to know the reasons for the CMA’s decision. The necessity now for the CMA to consult is important, given that a request can be made to report on a specific proposed regulatory provision, without the requirement to consult the body proposing to make that regulatory provision, which is quite extraordinary in my view.

We do not even know, at the very least, what process the CMA would follow in the establishment of a task group to investigate a proposed regulatory provision; nor will that devolved Administration necessarily know the basis on which the task group will investigate. These are basic principles that the noble Lord is correct to highlight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly agree on the principle of trust between all parties in a negotiation. It is not always there in every negotiation, but this is more than a negotiation; it is a relationship. It is a life together, which we all wish to carry forward as the four nations and peoples of these islands. Standing at this Dispatch Box, I have sought to assure the House of the Government’s total commitment to proceeding with trust and respect. That has to come from every Government and institution in the United Kingdom. I go no further than that. I do not believe that seeking to set out a common approach to the management of the UK internal market in the UK Parliament, to which all four nations of this kingdom send representatives, should in any way undermine trust.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the discussions of the intergovernmental review, the conclusions of which we are asked to await, will specifically cover the operation of internal market legislation? Until now, as the Minister knows, legislative consent has been denied by both Wales and Scotland. The Minister repeated today that he regretted that the devolved Administration of Scotland has walked away from single market considerations. Will the intergovernmental fora that were referred to specifically cover the internal market?

Secondly, in their joint letter to my noble friend Lord Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and me, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, stated that the office for the internal market will have a role in providing independent advice in the dispute resolution process. With regard to the devolved Administrations in the intergovernmental fora, has it been confirmed that the OIM will have a role in dispute resolution?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I believe I heard my noble friend Lord Callanan addressing this point in the previous group and that there was talk of a letter. I may have misheard but, if such a letter were proposed, I would not want to interpose my rather excessively considerable body between my noble friend’s pen and your Lordships’ House. But I take the point. If it is not covered in the response that my noble friend Lord Callanan has promised, I will address it. I am not pleading for an institutional parsing of the text in my comments, but I repeat that we are jointly exploring a number of options to strengthen the impartiality of the intergovernmental dispute resolution process. We hope it can be carried forward successfully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and other noble Lords in this very robust but genuine and philosophical debate about the role of the CMA and the office for the internal market. The general thrust of the debate has been that there needs to be a degree of independence in this body but also that it should embrace the devolved legislatures as well as that within Westminster and Whitehall. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, to protect identities and recognise and acknowledge democracies that Westminster and Whitehall put in place with the devolved settlements, it is important that they are recognised. The best way to do that is through membership on an equal basis on the CMA and office for the internal market panels.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I was intending to address Amendment 131, which is now in the next group, because I agree totally with its sentiments, as well as Amendments 117, 118 and 119 in this group. It is interesting that, in its recent report, the Lords Constitution Committee states:

“The Government should explain why the Competition and Markets Authority is the right body to have oversight of the monitoring of the UK internal market”.


Perhaps the noble Lord will provide reasoning for that —I hope he does—because none of the noble Lords who have spoken this evening, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, have seen any merit in this organisation doing the job that will be required if this legislation is implemented.

The Lords Constitution Committee also states:

“The Government should seek to make the Office of the Internal Market more clearly accountable to the different legislatures in the UK.”


If you want their buy-in—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has said, there is no buy-in in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—it is going to be an uphill struggle for the Government to achieve that.

In looking at various aspects of this over the last few days, there is no doubt that members should be appointed by all four Executives on an equal rather than proportionate basis, with substantial stakeholder input from the business sector. It should have a dispute resolution capability and sufficient powers of enforcement. Its remit should include measuring additional costs of GB goods to Northern Ireland and the source of the extra cost. Coincidentally, this issue has already been referred to in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and an information session was given by the Government to Northern Ireland businesses today, which said that there will be 30 million customs declarations on an annual basis between GB and Northern Ireland. That is the extent of the issue and the extent, for some of us, of the problem and the work required.

There is no doubt that the resources and information necessary to monitor the impact of the UK internal market as it relates to the implementation of the protocol could be covered in Amendment 131, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I also highlight the capacity to be informed by relevant stakeholders and business and consumer groups. There is a view in the wider business and academic worlds that the Competition and Markets Authority is not a natural fit, as it deals with private, not government, business. The proximity of the CMA to BEIS would always leave it open to accusations of political influence, even though it is a non-ministerial department with strategic influence given by BEIS.

In summary, it is important that that overarching authority should be—here I go further than other noble Lords, perhaps—independent of all political and governmental influence. However, there is no doubt that the work, influence and devolution settlements need to be recognised and, as such, representatives from the devolved structures need to be on the overarching body for it to work and bring some sense to this organisation. I am happy to support Amendments 117, 118 and 119.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is a characteristically interesting and deep group, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. Having listened to and thought through all the contributions, I start by asking the Minister a question. Did the CMA respond to the Government’s consultation on their White Paper? If so, will the Government publish that response? Over the years, the CMA, as an independent body, has responded to many consultations on government proposals. What was its response to this? We know, as the Minister has indicated in answers to previous groups, that the Bill was, to put it most kindly, drafted within a constrained period; others may say that it was rushed. It seems there are concerns that the Government have found the CMA to be the appropriate body for a function to identify problems which the Government themselves have not indicated exist yet. It is all to do with future problems.

I will start by reflecting on the very good point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who is frequently wrong in these debates. Her points are excellent, but when she shows the working of her arguments, we often come to a different conclusion. I have struggled to find a recent example of a UK body, operating on UK reserved matters, which has a direct role on devolved Administrations and Parliaments for areas within their competencies. Maybe the Minister can indicate where that has been the case. If that is not common practice, then we are in new territory. The closest that I can think of would be the operation of certain UK regulators that, by virtue of the decisions they can make within the reserved functions, could have an impact on devolved ones. We addressed that in the Scotland Act 2016, under which there are, for example, new requirements, which did not exist previously, for Ofgem and Ofcom to lay their reports to the Scottish Parliament. Interestingly, both Ofgem and Ofcom have a statutory duty under that Act to appear before a Scottish Parliament committee. This is part of an advance recognition that the decisions that they can make in regulating a UK market will have an impact.

In response to the noble Baroness, the role that the Government seek for the CMA is now markedly different, because the CMA is not just a UK body operating under explicitly UK issues of competition and regulatory functions. It will now report on non-UK-wide policy proposals made by the UK Parliament for England only, for Wales only or for Scotland only. That is a very different way for that body to operate; it was not the policy intent when it was formed in 2013. It is worth considering in detail, because it is a deviation from the policy intent in its parent legislation.

The CMA is also, fundamentally, about private enterprises in the market and the protection of consumer interests, but it will now have new responsibilities to report directly on decisions made by one Parliament, within its legislative competencies, which do not have private enterprise relationships or consumer interests at their heart. This goes back to the debate about what legitimate aims are. We are moving from a single market which had a wider scope of legitimate aims—environmental policies for example—to a more restrictive one. However, the decisions that will be made for England, Wales or Scotland alone will be within their existing devolved competencies or, indeed, their new ones. It goes far beyond what we have at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for detaining the Committee; I know I spoke at length on this group. Can the Minister clarify something that he said at the outset? I heard him say that responses to the consultation supported the Government’s proposals for the CMA having this role, but I have the White Paper and the consultation in front of me. No one asked; the Government did not ask. The CMA is not mentioned at all, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated. In fact, questions 3 and 4 do not refer to the CMA, and in the entire section the CMA is not mentioned. To resolve this, would the Government publish the consultation responses before Report, or can the Minister clarify in his remarks that he may have inadvertently misled the Committee?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I will certainly check that, and of course I will respond to the noble Lord if that proves incorrect. We obviously proposed the creation of the office for the internal market in the White Paper and said that we were interested in views—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, shakes his head but I think we did. I will clarify that for the noble Lord in writing, in one of the many letters that I will be sending him. I definitely remember having discussions at the time of the White Paper with many noble Lords whom I spoke to during the consultation. We certainly discussed at the time how the creation of a new body would best monitor the function and effectiveness of the UK internal market process in the context of the White Paper, but I will certainly clarify that for the noble Lord in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

How could any Government elected on that platform decline to include this amendment in the Bill?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I will focus on whether Clause 48 should stand part, as my noble friends have done on this group. In so doing, I shall comment on the contributions. I agree with my noble friend Lady Randerson, who said that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, was very important. I hope that the Government Front Bench was listening very carefully to that contribution. I see the Minister nodding, and that is very positive.

I looked again at the Explanatory Notes for Clause 48. It is quite telling that the Government are seeking financial assistance powers. I wondered for whom. The Explanatory Notes state that the power to provide financial assistance enables

“the UK Government to provide funding to local authorities, sectoral organisations, community groups, educational institutions and other bodies and persons in order to support and promote these policy areas across the UK.”

It is very telling that there is no mention of the devolved Administrations. It is fairly obvious that the Government’s intention is to have powers which effectively go over the devolved competencies of the nations, because in many respects the areas that had European structural funds are within the devolved competences. As the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and others indicated, there is no mention in the Bill of concurrent or shared expenditure, or of supporting joint policy initiatives. This is against the thrust of what we have had over the past 20 years with devolution.

This is not purely about devolution, because this affects developments within England too, such as growth deals and city partnerships. This expenditure will go beyond the structures that have already been agreed, and in many respects all those aspects have been included in the multiannual financial frameworks of the European structural funds. So it right to ask: what is the purpose of this? If this is the mechanism through which the shared prosperity fund will be delivered, why is there no reference to the shared prosperity fund? Why is the scope of the legislation far beyond what the Government said in their 2019 manifesto about a national skills fund? Why is there no reference to the delivery mechanisms that the Government have indicated should be in place for the shared prosperity fund? Or does the legislation seek to go beyond the shared prosperity fund? There is no statement in the Explanatory Note and there is no framework in the legislation for how that expenditure will be committed.

The sums are huge, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who I am glad introduced this group. I rely on the House of Commons briefing paper from September this year to give the figures. In 2018, public and private sector organisations in the UK received £5.9 billion from the EU, through various channels. On top of that, we received £4.4 billion for UK projects on infrastructure, some supporting the growth of employment, from the European Investment Bank. That is included within this clause of the legislation, but we know that UK support from the European Investment Bank will no longer be available, so what is the source of this expenditure to support infrastructure investment? How will infrastructure investment from loans or grants be delivered?

As the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and other noble Lords have said, to date, most expenditure has been allocated to member states and then managed through our devolved Administrations, regional partnerships or local authorities. Until this point, 76% of all European investment has been allocated, first, to the member state to manage—and then it has gone through our existing frameworks. If there is to be a new system to deliver that level of expenditure, separate from our existing delivery and accountability mechanisms, the Government need to say so.

Until now, in the multiannual financial framework 2014-20, the UK partnership agreement gave granular detail—it is a 373-page document—for all projects and where they are, with a chapter for UK-wide expenditure, and chapters for England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. Interestingly, Gibraltar is included in this, but there is no reference in the scope of the legislation to providing financial assistance to Gibraltar, so the poor Gibraltarians have been completely dropped off the ability to support.

In their manifesto, the Government said about the shared prosperity fund:

“We will consult widely on the design of the fund, including with the devolved administrations, local authorities, businesses and public bodies.”


It was to be finalised after the comprehensive spending review. That has been delayed, for understandable reasons, but can the Minister state when the conclusion of the design of the fund will be published? If the shared prosperity fund is to be in place from April 2021, as the Government said in their 2019 manifesto, it leaves little time for our public bodies, which will be managing it, to operate. If it is not the intention of the Government for our public bodies to administer it, what central government structures will be in place to administer this fund? Why does this legislation have some areas that go beyond what the Conservative manifesto said, which was that it would be spent on skills?

Secondly, as was referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, how do the intended powers of this legislation impact on the statement of funding policy? The statement of funding policy is the core document on financial relationships. It has population proportions expenditure and comparability factors, and it is applied to all spending and spending rounds. How does this power interact with the statement of funding policy? Will it be over the top of regional strategies? How will it be accounted for in the recipient public bodies? If it is to go to local authorities, how will it impact their accounting? If it goes directly to local authorities, how will it go to those areas?

I close with a tangible example. We heard references from colleagues from Wales and across England. I live in the Scottish Borders which, using the NUTS2 areas, has the lowest GVA per head in the United Kingdom, at 59.3% of the UK average. Outer London has 67.9% of the UK average. Under the Government’s current proposals, an area such as the Scottish Borders will not be eligible for this kind of support. Will the Government ensure that this funding is aligned to not only devolved but local authority strategies? Will it be aligned with the state aid maps? This separate approach will be beneficial for our country only if it is consistent with and supports our existing policies and strategies, at a local, regional and national level.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, this Government are determined to deliver on the commitments upon which they were elected: levelling up the whole United Kingdom, delivering prosperity for all citizens and strengthening the ties that bind our union together. Part 6 of the Bill helps to achieve this. This power to provide financial assistance will enable spending in the areas of infrastructure, economic development, culture and sport. It will also support educational and training activities, and exchanges within the UK and internationally. Previously, as noble Lords have noted, much of this was done at the EU level.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, among others, that over the course of discussion and debate on this Bill, throughout Parliament and beyond, the Government have repeated our intention to work with the devolved Administrations. This power, in addition to existing powers, will allow the UK Government to complement and strengthen the support given to citizens in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, without taking away devolved Administrations’ responsibilities.

As noble Lords have noted, the response to Covid has shown how the UK Government, alongside important co-operation with the devolved Administrations, can save jobs and support communities. This could only have been delivered strategically and at that scale by the UK Government. This power will ensure that we can invest UK taxpayers’ money nationwide on UK priorities as we leave the transition period, as well as supporting people and businesses across the UK to recover from Covid.

The UK Government are uniquely positioned to level up across every part of the UK, ensuring that the entire country can feel the benefit of increased trade, improved business conditions and a truly global economy. The power to provide financial assistance will facilitate this. Noble Lords will know that these aims support the Government’s manifesto commitments to strengthen the union, level up the country and match the current levels of EU structural funding in each nation through a UK-wide replacement programme—the UK shared prosperity fund. That is why I commend this clause to stand part of the Bill.

I will now discuss Amendments 167, 168 and 132. Collectively, they seek to remove the power to provide financial assistance in Part 6 of the Bill and replace it with provisions for the operation of a UK shared prosperity commission, detailed in a proposed new schedule. Let me begin by emphasising that the power to provide financial assistance in Part 6 would operate UK-wide to support a variety of purposes. This includes economic development but is not limited to it. It is therefore wider than any single fund or organisation. I say this in response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the purposes of the power.

The effect of these amendments would be that the Bill would not confer on the UK Government the power to provide financial assistance UK-wide for infrastructure, economic development, culture or sport, or to support educational and training activities and exchanges within the UK and internationally. Although the UK Government have some existing powers to spend across the whole UK, the power we are taking now creates a unified power that operates consistently UK-wide, to deliver investment more flexibly, dynamically and in partnership with the devolved Administrations and other partners. Part 6 will make sure that the UK Government are well positioned to deliver investments following the end of the transition period, and to meet their commitment to replace EU structural funds.

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, tabled his amendment to probe the Government’s plans on this and I hope to be able to provide some answers. On the level of funding, the Government committed in their manifesto to maintaining, as I already said, at a minimum the existing levels of investment across all four nations from the EU structural funds. The noble Lord is correct that this was based not on Barnett but on an EU formula. In future, the UK can ensure that funding reflects the needs of the UK, not the 27 other member states, as this work is taken forwards. He is also correct that there are a number of ways in which this funding could be done but, if I may reassure noble Lords about the purpose of the funding, the Government have been clear on their aim: to tackle inequality and deprivation, and level up across the United Kingdom.

On timing, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is right that to prioritise the response to Covid-19 and focus on supporting jobs, the multi-year spending review has been postponed. But he is also correct that we have some time, as EU funds are still being provided. Our aim is to ensure a smooth transition from current EU structural funds to the UK shared prosperity fund.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.

I shall start with Amendment 7. First of all, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that importing and exporting goods is part of the commercial life of this country. That applies across all parts of the United Kingdom, and one can well understand the point that she makes about the importance for the devolved Administrations of maintaining that system with as little interference as possible. However, the point to which Amendment 7 draws attention is a matter of real concern to the devolved Administrations. As she explained, its effect appears to be to deny them any involvement in decisions on the importation of goods from overseas, to which they might wish to take objection. Various horror stories are of course passed around as one discusses this issue, but I am not concentrating on them so much as I am on the simple lack of ability to contribute to a discussion as to whether or not these goods should be imported.

If one was talking about legislation, I suppose one would say the Sewel principle would apply and consultation would take place, but there appears to be nothing that allows for that. The effect of the way the provision is worded is that something that comes in can take the benefit of the principles and pass without any kind of control to the devolved Administrations, without their having any say. That is of real concern. This is a probing amendment, but it requires some explanation of what place, if any, the devolved Administrations have in trying to resist the importation into, and transmission across borders within, the UK of goods to which, for one reason or another, they might wish to take exception.

That covers Amendment 7. As for Amendment 21, I was attracted by what the noble Lord, Lord German, said about the dual carriageway—the parallel lines—for a particular reason, which I have not mentioned before but must be emphasised. The common frameworks are living arrangements. There is no point at which one can strictly say that a framework has come to an end, although I confess that my own amendment suggests that it could happen. These frameworks are open to subsequent discussion and revisiting as things change. For example, much of the UK emissions trading system is based on EU law and treaty arrangements that could change. If that happened, the framework would be revisited, and, no doubt, different policy decisions may need to be taken. The same is true of the hazardous substances framework.

One has to bear in mind these are two living instruments working side by side: the UK internal market and the common frameworks system. The fact that, as the Bill has it at the moment, there is no means by which they can communicate with each other, is a matter of real concern, because it affects the whole structure of how these things co-operate and will co-operate in the future, in ways we cannot yet predict. That underlines the importance of trying to find a solution to the point I drew attention to on Monday of making some arrangement whereby the decisions taken, based on common framework decisions, to legislate in the devolved Administrations are protected against the effect of the market principles, particularly the non-discrimination principle, which has very broad reach indeed.

The great value of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is that it has drawn attention once again to that very real problem. It requires some response from the Minister so that we can have some idea of how he thinks these two parallel carriageways, stretching out into the future, will ever meet and co-operate with one another.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord and to agree with the thrust of his argument, which he made very well. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made the valid point that the purpose of our internal UK economy is to have as few barriers as possible while recognising that we are an entity of four nations with distinct areas that can make their own policies. That is not new. The Agriculture Act 1970 had different applications within the Scottish, English and Welsh agricultural sectors. So many of the areas we are talking about within these groups predate the European Union, so the principle that we have had a different approach in many of the component nations is valid.

The Government, however, have introduced this new concept, which means, for example, that the UK’s biggest food and drink export, whisky, could now be open to a great problem because a decision made by one country, Scotland, could act against the interests of farmers in England who provide products to serve that. It is the barley question, which the Minister has referred to and on which I have asked questions before. As the noble Lord, Lord True, indicated, in summing up the debate on the previous group on Monday and correcting the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that is an area that will be covered by a legislative framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

I have had a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Minister did not explain why services from the Isle of Man to the rest of the United Kingdom will be considered within the United Kingdom internal market, but goods coming from the Isle of Man are outside the single market. There are many service providers from the Isle of Man. In fact, financial services are probably a bigger part of the Isle of Man economy than goods for export. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain this. The Minister did not respond to my point about whether these regulations apply to the services that citizens receive for higher education. This is very important within Scotland.

My point to the Minister, I believe, justifies my argument on the good working relationship across the four nations on fertilisers and pesticides. The Minister referenced the justification for the government amendment about the need to work in emergencies. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 already has exclusions from market access principles for threats to human, animal and plant health. Emergencies were already covered. The amendment that the Government brought forward was not on emergencies; I looked at the regulations that it covers, which are in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 on fertilisers and pesticides. The Bill will allow the Scottish Government, and a Welsh Government or UK Government acting for England, to make a different judgment on the advice they get from the single regulator about the safety of a pesticide for, as the Minister Paul Scully said, “movement and use”.

So, if English farmers, under the authority of the regulations in the Bill, decide to use fertilisers on crops—barley—that are unsafe in the view of the Scottish Government, the Bill will allow the Scottish Government to prevent that barley from being used in Scottish distilleries. The Minister said that the whole purpose of the Bill was to prevent that from arising. So he has managed to undermine the entire intent of his argument at Second Reading, which was that the purpose of this legislation was to prevent a barrier from a different decision being made on safety grounds. If this amendment, which the Government brought forward, allows for different decisions to be made on the safety of pesticides used in different parts of the UK, I hope the Minister will reflect on what he said about the justification for the Bill.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I understand the point the noble Lord is making, but I think we are talking at cross purposes. It would allow provisions on unsafe products, but the provisions would be based on advice from the common regulator—so presumably the authorities in England would draw the same conclusion. It does not allow a Minister to dream up a definition of “unsafe” and implement provisions on that.

On the noble Lord’s first point, if he will forgive me, I will write to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I have no wish to add to the general confusion.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clearing this up, because any confusion beforehand may be ongoing. Since he was so clear, perhaps he will not mind my asking a couple more questions.

As the Committee knows, I live on the border, and some of these things are very relevant for traders, especially rural traders living on either side of the border. When I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament, one of the big areas of debate when minimum unit pricing was introduced was the concern about the cross-border selling of alcohol, which avoided the decision being made in Scotland concerning the price of that alcohol. This is not hypothetical; these were real sales. It did not apply to the more expensive malt whiskies et cetera. The minimum unit pricing of alcohol was, by and large, about the low-value alcohol which could be brought across the border in large quantities to be sold in Scotland. That was a valid issue, and a key area of consideration when it was debated by the European court. The justification, which the ability of the public authorities to prevent that happening relied on, was that this was against market access principles but justified on public health grounds. The Government have chosen not to do this, so they will be relying on the market access principles.

Can the Minister clarify something that I genuinely do not know? I am not trying to catch him off guard. On the sale areas of goods, does the Bill permit alcohol for use within Scotland to be sold in Scotland on English grounds? Can alcohol be sold in Scotland by using mutual recognition, to avoid the minimum unit price stipulated for alcohol that is then sold in Scotland? I have a fear that it may be. It will be reassuring if the Minister indicates that this is not the case, because Clause 13 is about the sale of goods complying with local law and states:

“Nothing in this Part prevents goods produced in or imported into a part of the United Kingdom from being sold in another part of the United Kingdom if … the sale complies with any requirements applicable in that other part of the United Kingdom”.


Therefore, if we say that, rather than biscuits, it is gin or vodka, and a policy has a direct impact on the price of that gin or vodka because of the Scottish legislation, then Clause 13 suggests that if that alcohol was brought over from Northumberland and sold in the borders, the selling of it to a wholesaler within the borders would have to be done as if it had taken place in Berwick, Northumberland.

I ask this because there is currently a lot of cross-border trade in agricultural business. Many Scottish producers will sell livestock at the Wooler market in England. A lot of this is happening. It has been worked through with regard to the different agricultural standards. Therefore, I am anxious that Clause 13 could inadvertently be used to bypass what are correct elements.

This leads me to my final question. We will come to the definition of “goods” and “sale” with Amendments 66 and 67, but there is nothing in the definition of “sale”, or the other parts of the Bill, relating to the price. If policies are in place which directly impact on the price of an item to be sold, rather than standards, labelling or marketing, is price also considered within that? I would be very grateful and give him top marks if the Minister can answer those questions clearly.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have mainly technical, minor drafting points, which do not require much discussion. The Minister was consumed during his speech because of the hypothetical tin of biscuits that he brought into play. I am so glad that we do not have details of what pig semen is carried in. I much prefer us sticking with the tin of biscuits as our main metaphor in these issues.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I wonder why these amendments are being tabled now. After all, the Bill has been through the other place and been republished. Only now are we getting evidence of “scrubbing the text” to ensure that the sorts of issues raised in this group of amendments will not get into the final version of the Bill. It is a minor criticism of a very minor issue, and I am happy to await the answers to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, which would bear substantial response and will need to be dealt with at the appropriate time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments on Amendment 25. It was a question linked to the previous group that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, did not respond to, so I am very grateful that he did.

The Minister talked about how “substantive change” is now defined. We are now in the realm of what the Minister said is a Pepper v Hart moment because what is said on the record at the Dispatch Box is very important, and these measures require a different outcome. The policy outcome intentions of many of these measures might remain the same, but some elements would be different. If the Minister is saying—on minimum unit pricing, for example, or on environmental or public health considerations—that if the intended outcome of the re-enacted or updated requirement remains the same, would that continue to be exempt? That is important because, in both the legislation and the Explanatory Memorandum, that is not so defined. If minimum unit pricing changes the level of the price, or if tuition fees continue but their level changes, if the policy intent is the same, the exemption will carry on—is that the correct understanding?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I note and hear what the noble Lord has said, but I think he would allow me not to enter into speculative discussions. I have put to the Committee a response to a question—a response provided to me to advise the Committee. As for its application, that is a matter that would be speculative and could be considered further. I will stand by the words that I put before the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest because I am half English and half Scottish, and proud of it. I am very close to my Scottish family. I have always feared that, in this House in particular, we have underestimated the dangers ahead had devolution not happened. The lessons of Ireland are there, and I believe that the peace and stability of our peoples across the islands of Ireland and Great Britain have been ensured by the process of devolution; I am convinced of that.

When my noble friend Lord Hain says he sometimes does not understand why Ministers do not accept the logic of a particular position that is taken, I think that he is failing to look at the driving force behind all that is happening. As I said in a debate on a previous amendment today, I believe that there is a driving force against everything that I think most of us in this House have believed was vital.

There is a world of difference between the concepts of “consult” and “consent”. What builds up the resentment of the Scottish people, for example—I am sure it is true for Northern Ireland and Wales as well—is the patronising assumption that we will consult the others. Those who emphasise the importance of mutuality in this debate are absolutely right. That means that we meet, in a sense, as equals, and we seek their consent to proposals that we may be making.

The amendment is vital. It is vital not just to this internal market Bill but to recommitting ourselves to peace-building. We always seem to react and try to deal with crises when they have overtaken us. In this case, we had the wisdom to look ahead and do things in time. We will need to reassert the whole process of peace-building, mutual consent and the recognition of people as people, wherever they are with their identity. This amendment is very important indeed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I agree with him. Reflecting on this amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend Lord German on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, I was struck by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. During the 20 years of devolution, none of us has had a unique monopoly on wisdom as to what devolution is. It has been a combination of people on a journey. The noble Lord started from a position of opposition but then perhaps found areas to support, while recognising that there are still frictions within our union. Within my party, there has been a consistent element of support for delivering it.

I hope the Minister accepts that no one in this House wishes our union ill harm. No one wants the internal market not to operate in the best way that it can for the benefit of our businesses and our people. Clearly, there are nationalists across parts of the United Kingdom who have a different purpose, but when we are scrutinising this Bill, we want it to be better.

I want to reflect on the points made to the Scottish Parliament by the right honourable Michael Gove. He was asked why the Government was insisting on putting this legislation forward when it had not received the normal legislative consent Motions. Michael Gove said that these were exceptional circumstances. It is arguable whether all the component parts of this Bill—which creates the framework for an internal market with its long-term consequences—are both exceptional and necessary before the end of January.

The Minister still has to persuade many that the whole of the Bill is required by the end of the IP period, given that we are still awaiting legislative frameworks. As part of EU retained law, there is a standstill period for all those pieces of legislation anyway, so we question the Bill’s necessity. The Government insist that they need it to go through but, since the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, indicated in a previous group that it was drafted in a bit of a rush during the summer, it is right to ask the Government to think seriously about those elements that will have a significant impact on the ability of the devolved Administrations to legislate and of Ministers in Scotland and Wales to act in an executive way within their competences.

Perhaps the Government could reflect and insert some provisions into this legislation in order to reassure the devolved Administrations that the level of consultation to which we have been accustomed in the past will continue in future. As the Constitution Committee report clearly indicated, it is only in Clause 6 where changes would have an impact that the Government are proposing to consult with the devolved Administrations. There is no provision for what would happen if there were a dispute or if the consultation were to indicate that the devolved Administrations did not want the Government to continue on their chosen route.

Clauses 8, 10, 17, 19, 20 and 48 all contain areas where the Constitution Committee has highlighted changes that would have an impact on the devolved Administrations and their legislative competences, and where no consultation is proposed. These areas can be rectified without a change to the timetable by which the Government wish to move forward. This is a legitimate request on behalf of all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.

In this group, it has been helpful to reflect on the areas where it has become the practice to seek consent for significant changes to the constitutional framework impacting on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Then there are secondary areas where—if there has been an impact—consultation has been the norm.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for putting down this question. The Law Society of Scotland makes a valid point about why there would be a new, and potentially competing, definition of sales between this legislation and the Sale of Goods Act. I will just ask two supplementary questions. The first is a genuine probing question about the Government’s view. Given that many sales are conducted online now—and probably the vast majority in the coming years—what is the Government’s view, with regard to this legislation, on the location where an online sale takes place and how that is covered by the definition?

The example given by my noble friend Lord Fox was about phasing in the banning of coal in England, but not yet in Wales or Scotland. It was a genuine question, and it was a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, did not have a chance to answer. On a reading of this legislation, someone in England who is banned from purchasing coal for use in their household in England would, under the definition of “sale” in Clause 13, be able to buy household coal from a Welsh or Scottish coal merchant, at a local or online sale, who would then be able to deliver. It would be good if that could be clarified, even if the Minister needs to write to us about it. It is a genuine issue to highlight.

My second question links to this amendment more directly. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and other noble Lords who have Scottish legal qualifications will be familiar with this. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on the Opposition Front Bench. Sales in Scotland often have a cut-and-paste element, stating that the law of contract of England applies. Of course, it does not in Scotland. That tends to be viewed as not having effect, and that the cut and paste is not accurate, as contract law is different north of the border. When it comes to the definition of sales through a contract, if the sale of an imported good is conducted within Scotland, is it considered local or not? If that is the case, does the contract law of Scotland apply under this legislation or is the default the law of contract for England? If the latter, that is problematic for transactions carried out north of the border.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for raising these points. There is a raft of unanswered questions here. It is late at night, so I will try to focus on only the most important. Am I right in assuming that the market access principles, recognition and discrimination, apply to the rental and gifting of goods? If they apply to the rental of goods, what is the policy purpose? What is the purpose of applying them to the gifting of goods and what does it mean in practice? For example, does it apply to statutory requirements for the provision of food by food suppliers that are subject to statutory requirements?

The second head of issues concerns the position of public bodies engaged in commerce. I understand, but only from the Explanatory Notes, that the supplying of drugs by the NHS, even though it does so in a commercial context from time to time, is not covered by the Bill. Is this right? I have particularly in mind Clause 14(2), which says:

“‘Sale’ does not include a sale which … is made in the course of a business but only for the purpose of performing a function of a public nature.”


I read in the Explanatory Notes that that means the NHS supplying drugs. If that is right, what does the completely impenetrable Clause 14(3)(b) mean when it says:

“Subsection (2)(b) does not exclude a sale which is … not made for the purpose of performing a function of a public nature (other than a function relating to the carrying on of commercial activities)”?


Can the Minister explain this to the House? It matters quite considerably because I suspect it will cover a great deal of commercial activity performed by public bodies.

Thirdly, and separately, what is the position in relation to the goods that are made partly in one part of the United Kingdom and partly in another—for example, cars on an assembly line that crosses borders, or planes or high-tech equipment where parts from elsewhere come into it? As a result of Clause 15(3) and (4), is there a separate application to each of the individual components or does one look only at the completed goods?

Lastly, and this is perhaps the most significant, how do the Government envisage that this will operate? My understanding of Clause 6, on the non-discrimination principle, is that where a statutory or regulatory requirement in one part of the country discriminates indirectly, making the sale of those goods disadvantageous in another part of the United Kingdom, that disadvantageous provision can be supported only if it has one of the legitimate aims identified in Clause 8(6).

Let us take minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland. This is a relevant requirement which indiscriminately discriminates against incoming goods on the basis that alcohol brought into Scotland from England by a supplier is the subject of a disadvantage as defined in Clause 8(2); namely, minimum pricing makes it less attractive because the goods are more expensive to buy. As I understand it, this can be justified only if that minimum pricing statutory requirement has one of the following aims:

“the protection of the life or health of humans, animals or plants”

or

“the protection of public safety or security”.

Am I right in understanding that if, for example, a large supplier of alcohol from England into Scotland wished to challenge minimum alcohol pricing, he could do so by taking his buyer to court? There would then be a private law action in the courts of either Scotland or England—could the Minister tell me which it would be, assuming that the minimum alcohol pricing was in Scotland and the supplier was in England?—and the courts would have to decide whether or not minimum alcohol pricing was a regulation that had a legitimate aim.

The consequence of this Act—which is quite tricky to understand and is perhaps unthought-out—is that we in Parliament are handing over to the courts the determination of policies such as minimum alcohol pricing. That seems at the moment to be the consequence of the way that the Bill is drafted. I cannot believe that that is what any sensible Government would wish. Could the Minister please explain how Clause 8 works? I hope she can explain why my conclusions on the basis of Clause 8 are wrong—I really hope they are.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful for how the Minister responded. I think that the last point she made was really important. The Government have been talking about restrictions on the ability of the devolved Administrations to sell, yet on the point that my noble friend Lord Fox made—that the Government for England have banned not the use but the sale of household coal—the Minister said that it would be possible to continue to provide household coal in England through a Welsh or online retailer. It is quite extraordinary that the undermining of public policy along those lines could be operated, but the Government seem to be perfectly content about that. However, the transparency on that, at least, has been helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, have withdrawn from this group so I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will no doubt be pleased to hear that I will not ask questions about whisky even though, after nine hours on this Bench, it seems to be at the forefront of my mind right now. I do not know why but a nice glass of whisky would be rather welcome.

I want to follow on directly from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and expand on her very good second point about organisations that are not within the Schedule 2 exclusions but may, for example, seek services that have a specific characteristic of one of our home nations or additional requirements—such as having the capacity to speak the Welsh language, which would be important for the provision of certain services in parts of the United Kingdom, or, in the highlands of Scotland or certain parts of Glasgow, proficiency in the Gaelic language. Given that these were covered in the European Union elements, which the Minister argued previously were restrictive but which are actually broad and allowed this trade to be conducted properly, I hope that the Minister can respond as to why those elements would not be covered in this Bill and whether there would be the ability to have some of the specific requirements with regard to regulatory requirements that have specific characteristics.

Aside from language and other conditions with regard to equality legislation, which would be covered under putting services to contracts, I notice that transport services are excluded but water services are not. As the Minister knows, the provision of water services is distinct in our four nations. There are separate industries and these will not be excluded. I would be interested to know whether the current contractual arrangements are out of scope of this legislation because they are current. On the non-discrimination principles in the services sector, I have a concern about the distinct nature of the legislation for the Scottish water industry, which is a public body with one shareholder—the Scottish Minister—and whether an English service provider would be able to challenge the provision of Scottish water services because they are not excluded from this legislation. I would be most grateful if the Minister could allay my concern about that.

Similarly, the provision of water in Wales is a different legal entity—it is a mutual approach. Many private enterprises in the provision of services, as we know, are of an international nature. There is an even greater concern that if, for example, an American service business, through a trade agreement with the United Kingdom, had a brass plate enterprise in the City of London with American shareholders, that might be the gateway for it to challenge the mutual model in Wales or the approach in Scotland. I hope that the Minister can allay my fear about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to obtain absolute clarity from the Minister on the exemption in Schedule 2 with regard to:

“Services provided by a person exercising functions of a public nature”—


that is, a public body. That may apply to Wales but the General Teaching Council for Scotland is a charity as well as a regulatory body. The Minister outlined what it would be able to do to change, if challenged, those seeking to be registered in Scotland under the English criteria but who do not meet the Scottish criteria. The fear is that because the council is a charity—it is the oldest regulatory body for teachers in the world—it would be forced to accept teachers of a different standard than the English standard, which I automatically assumed would be a lesser standard. Will the Minister clarify that charities, such as regulatory bodies like the GTCS, are included in Schedule 2? She said it applied just to public bodies.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not going to give the noble Lord a definitive answer now but I will write to him to make sure that we are clear about that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief because of the hour. It would be churlish not to welcome amendments that have the purpose of clarification within this legislation. I just say to the Minister, “Don’t stop here. Keep them coming”. We will certainly welcome further government amendments to add more clarification to the legislation.

I am glad the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned the point about languages, as an example of something that the Minister did not respond to in the previous group. If certain elements are set down as part of the regulatory requirement—such as language capability, for example, or other characteristics that would have been permitted under the current legitimate aims but are not allowed under the new legitimate aims—what is the status of those? Would that be considered as putting providers at a disadvantage under Clause 20(2)(b)?

My second point was that, under Clause (20)(2)(c), the regulatory requirement has no effect. I note that I do not think there has been a sufficient answer to the question in an earlier group about what “no effect” actually means when it comes to a regulatory requirement. It has no effect if it has “an adverse market effect”. I wonder if the Minister could outline in clear terms what the test for that adverse market effect would be. Where and how would it be judged, and who would judge it? What would the test for that be, given that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and my noble friend Lord fox said, this is likely to be tested in court because of the lack of clarity?

My final point is this. Given that service providers for higher education are not considered to be public bodies—and this was not answered in the previous group—and higher education is not considered to be within a legitimate aim, if a higher education provider outside Scotland were seeking to deliver services, the higher education system within Scotland would not be able to restrict it on the basis of the indirect discrimination element. If the Minister could state whether that would be the case, I would be grateful.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be pleased to hear that I have got very little to add.

On the question of an adverse market effect, there are also questions around adverse to whom and adverse to what. Is it merely the price and the amount of choice, which is what the Minister appears to fall back on every time the market is described, or is there a wider adversity that comes into this?

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 1. There is very little that needs to be said in addition to what my noble friend Lady Hayter so clearly set out. In her speech she prayed in aid the Government’s attitude to the Agriculture Bill—which I also took part in—hence the necessity of the amendment. In my innocence, I am assuming that the Government will accept it, but perhaps I am too innocent.

I also support Amendment 2. The purpose of my speech is to serve as a pre-emptive strike to preserve the position of devolved legislatures, as I did in my Second Reading speech. I will make the same point regarding other amendments. Agriculture is a devolved matter. The single market is important throughout the United Kingdom. However, I am wary when power given to devolved Administrations and legislatures is taken away from them. The onus is on Her Majesty’s Government to prove necessity—hence the importance of the words in paragraph (d) in the amendment, which I particularly support.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the first point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who said that this group of amendments and this debate are about whether it is necessary and desirable to agree with the Government on the definition of mutual recognition and non-discrimination. The question is therefore whether the Government have made their case sufficiently that the Bill’s definitions meet the criteria that the White Paper sets out for the functioning of the single market, which is something that we all value.

I think that the Government have made a less than convincing case on the necessity of these definitions. However, even if it were necessary to make a strategic case for defining these market access principles, such a case was not set out in the consultation, the White Paper, the Commons stages or the Minister’s speech on Second Reading. Have the Government explained why they have deviated from our current approach or from the approach we had before we joined the European Union? We had a functioning single market before we joined the EU and while we were members, as we do now, and it has served our country well. Even before devolution, our internal market before we joined the EU allowed for different laws and approaches and historic divergences in many areas, including in economic development, trading standards and other areas linked to the economy. The question is why the Government have decided to move away from the earlier British approach or the British approach as it was adapted and adopted through the European Union.

Before I turn to the matter of definitions, I want to speak to Amendment 59 on procurement. Noble Lords who took part in the early Committee sittings on the Trade Bill will recall that we debated the procurement aspects. I specifically asked why procurement was mentioned in the White Paper but not in this legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has also asked that question, and I hope the Minister will give us a clear answer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated, if procurement continues to be a devolved matter—as it has been, in many respects, under the framework of the European standards and the GPA international agreement—and the Scottish Government, for example, wish to have a procurement policy within an overall framework which sets standards for infrastructure or public buildings used for health or education, every supplier will have to meet those standards. That would not necessarily be discriminating against Scottish, English or Welsh construction firms; it would be a standard that they would be expected to meet. I fear that the Government want to have a uniform standard for the delivery of procurement policy across the United Kingdom. That would be worrying because it would be a significant move away from the flexibility we have had within the approach taken by the European Union.

There has been an assessment of the current approach taken within the EU single market—which we have left—which was updated in April 2020 in Regulation 2019/515. The current approach has a well-defined assessment procedure to be followed by competent authorities when assessing goods, which the Government’s approach lacks. The current approach has obligatory elements to be included in an administrative decision that restricts or denies market access. However, that is left open to UK Ministers to decide in a vacuum, and thus is lacking in the Government’s approach. Our current approach offers a voluntary mutual recognition declaration which businesses can use to demonstrate that their products are lawfully marketed in one EU country in a business-friendly, problem-solving procedure through the European single digital gateway for businesses and service providers on how this operates. These important aspects are missing in the new approach. I think it is therefore justifiable to ask on behalf of businesses across the UK which need to prepare for this, why the Government are not ready.

As will become clear in the debates on following groups, the Government are not ready for the implementation of this because the framework relationships are not yet in place. But even if they were, the Government have also failed to state why the nature and scope of the application of these market access principles are different from what we have understood and worked with for many years. For example, as Professor Nicola McEwen of Edinburgh University pointed out, the definition of indirect discrimination is not the same and is now more complicated than EU law. Not only that, Professor McEwen highlighted the circumstances in which mutual recognition rather than the non-discrimination rule will apply, or vice versa, which is different from the position under EU law. It is unclear how certain types of trading rules would be classified. She gives an interesting example of restrictions on the use rather than the sale or marketing of a product, such as the current ban on the use of electric shock training collars in Wales. There is no consistency in the Government’s approach on that. In further groups of amendments we will also need to explore why the range of exclusions and exceptions from the mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles is significantly narrower than under EU law.

The Government should tell us why the UK’s new approach is far more restrictive and more bureaucratic than the position we are moving away from. With a more restrictive approach, and without the previous flexibility that had been obvious in some areas, businesses, service providers and public authorities will have a much more burdensome single market to operate. The Government have presented no justification whatever for that. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness raised this issue at Second Reading. In a reply, the Minister said why the Government are taking a different approach:

“The market access principles have been designed to take account of the UK’s unique circumstances, reflecting that our market consists of four highly integrated, highly aligned parts. Conversely, EU provisions deal with 27 countries, all with diverse histories, cultures, and competing marketing priorities”.


I note that the Government do not think that our nations have a diverse history and culture, but they most definitely do. If they did not, we would not have had devolution in the first place. However, it does not follow that our current approach, even with devolution, has been more streamlined, and the Government seek to have a more complicated approach going forward.

My noble and learned friend asked about subsidiarity and proportionality, and the Minister replied as follows, which is interesting, given the very well-argued speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He said:

“Turning to your comment on subsidiarity and proportionality, we have now left the EU and are free to organise our internal market in a way that is better suited to the UK’s unique constitutional arrangements and common law system.”


The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, stated categorically that these approaches of subsidiarity and proportionality are deeply embedded in our constitutional arrangements, so why have the Government chosen to move away from them? I fail to understand why they are even changing their position from that of the frameworks agreement that had been in place. Regarding the principles agreed among all the nations, the second paragraph of the agreement on common frameworks states:

“Frameworks will respect the devolution settlements and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures, and will therefore”—


this is the second bullet point—

“maintain, as a minimum, equivalent flexibility for tailoring policies to the specific needs of each territory, as is afforded by current EU rules”.

So the Government agreed with the devolved nations that the current flexibilities and approach afforded by current EU rules would continue to apply, but this Bill argues that they will not. Given that this has implications for Scotland’s decision on minimum unit pricing or for a live case of the deposit return scheme that has been put in place, there are considerable concerns about why the Government have opted not to include environmental objectives in these restrictions.

I will close with another point on the environmental side. Can the Minister clarify the position on the relevant requirements for environmental aspects, which were formulated before this Bill but have yet to come into force? The Scottish deposit return scheme, which has been legislated for but is due to come into force in 2022, would, on my reading, come within the scope of this legislation. It has been made but is not yet in force. That legislation was fully compliant with the European approach because of the environmental objectives. Is it the Government’s intention that the Scottish deposit return scheme regulations will now be within the scope of this Bill? If not, this is just one example of why there are real difficulties with the Government not following the common-sense approach. The UK operated a single market before joining the EU and during its membership of the EU, and indeed our approach allowed for devolution to be accommodated within it. Why are the Government putting that at risk with their approach to these market principles, which are more restrictive, less certain, more bureaucratic and less clear? Why are they not seeking continuity?

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, in that extraordinary vote on Tuesday last, your Lordships’ House indicated what it felt about the most objectionable part of the Bill, and I hope that we will have a chance to develop those arguments further next week. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was right in her opening words to remind us that, although they are the overwhelming matters of concern in the Bill, they are not the only ones. Indeed, I find myself echoing what a number of your Lordships said in last week’s debate: what is the point of this Bill in its present form?

I draw your Lordships’ attention to the very trenchant comments in the devastating report of our Constitution Committee published last week. It indicated the committee’s unanimous real concern on the whole issue of devolution. Way back in the 1970s, I was not an advocate of devolution, and I sometimes think that my fears have come to pass. However, the fact is that we have devolution, and we cannot ignore what we have or we will truly endanger the future of the union, and that we must not do. Therefore, I very much hope that when my noble friend comes to wind up this debate, he will make it quite plain that he has taken on board our Constitution Committee’s comments on devolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, while I am grateful that the Minister has confirmed to me that a piece of legislation that has been made fully compliant with our single market—the deposit return scheme—will now come into scope under this legislation, because it is not yet in force in Scotland, that will be of very significant concern to Members of the Scottish Parliament, who legislated in good faith in a perfectly legal way. This Government have now said that that will come into scope, contrary to the market access principles, because it will not be able to be afforded protection if it is challenged in court because of the lack of environmental objections. I take the Minister’s point that he believes that it will be brought under the scope of market access principles, so I would be grateful if he could write to me to explain how indeed that will happen. If it is under a framework, we are back to exactly where we started, which is that the best approach on all these aspects is a framework.

That leads me to the question that I wish to ask him, because he did reply to the question that I asked about the status of the agreement made between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations on the framework agreement. In the document of September 2020 on the framework analysis, the Government repeated what that agreement was. I will quote from it again for the Minister: it was to

“maintain, as a minimum, equivalent flexibility for tailoring policies to the specific needs of each territory, as is afforded by current EU rules”.

The document goes on to say:

“These principles continue to guide all discussions between the UK Government and the devolved administrations on common frameworks.”


What is the basis of that document and that commitment, given what the Minister has just said in responding on this group: namely, that that is an ill-fitted set of agreements because we are now out of the EU? What is the status of the agreement that was made over the frameworks?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Well, as I have said before to the noble Lord, we remain completely committed to the framework process and we remain committed to frameworks that have already been agreed—but we see this legislation as complementary to that, as it underpins the entire framework process. As I said to him with regard to the deposit return scheme, if it comes into force when it is predicted to do so, then indeed it will be covered by the market access principles, but we are confident that the deposit return scheme can be brought into effect in full compliance with the market access principles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. That was a thoughtful contribution, and I hope the Government will reflect on it, because it is in the interests of both the Government and the future of the United Kingdom that that kind of approach is thought through.

I speak in support of the amendment, which I contend is a constructive approach to maintaining trust in the existing devolution settlements, which are strained, and establishing a consensual way forward. I believe it is consistent with the report of this House’s Constitution Committee, which, along with others, has questioned the need for the Bill at all—a point that has been mentioned by a number of speakers. Very late in the day, it appears that some in this Government show signs of a growing awareness of the dangerous game they are playing with the devolution settlements and the implications for the future of the United Kingdom. The question arises why the Government are in such a hurry to get this through with totally inadequate consultation with business or the devolved Administrations. The Minister’s claims of business support during Second Reading was, frankly, extremely thin.

The devolved Administrations are, as has been said, opposed to the Bill as it stands, and amendments have been tabled on their behalf on a cross-party basis. When challenged as to why the powers in the Bill are needed, the Government’s responses are wholly unconvincing. From everything I have seen and heard, the Bill appears to be a solution looking for a problem. When Ministers airily suggest, for example, that Scotch whisky distillers may be prevented from buying malting barley from England, without any shred of evidence, they refer to different building standards, apparently in ignorance of the fact that Scotland has different standards that well predate devolution.

Given the flimsiness of the Government’s case and knowing what we do about the high-handed, centralising, cavalier approach of the Government, we are surely entitled to be suspicious about their intentions. After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, pointed out, three years ago it was possible to set out in a communique the principles and approach behind the common frameworks process. The language is detailed and consensual. Specifically, the communique setting out the common frameworks describes the objective as enabling the function of the UK internal market while acknowledging policy divergence. It further stated that the devolution settlement should be respected and frameworks will

“be based on the established conventions and practices, including that the competence of the devolved institutions will not normally be adjusted without their consent.”

This approach and language are entirely missing from the Bill, so the question to the Minister is not only why the Bill is needed, but, even if that case can be made, why the hurry? More pertinently, having rejected letting common frameworks take all the strain, can the Minister explain why the eminently sensible and constructive approach of the common frameworks is not incorporated into the Bill, as I hope subsequent amendments will allow it to be? We will return to that.

That said, there remains a flaw in the common frameworks approach, which must be addressed and attached to the Bill if it goes forward, and it is identified in this amendment. It is that the devolved Administrations must be fully involved throughout the process and represented in the institutions that progress the frameworks. The proposals for the office for the internal market to be incorporated into the Competition and Markets Authority has been widely criticised. First, the CMA has a dedicated and reserved function, and there is no provision for the devolved Administrations to be represented, but they surely must be represented on the OIM or a better alternative.

As has again been commented on, so far, the common frameworks are progressing with all the appearance of a high degree of consensus and the dispute mechanism has not been called into play. It might be thought that, given the constructive, consensual approach to date, the likelihood is that if dispute resolution reached the apex, it would be accepted. However, it would not be satisfactory as it stands, and certainly not fit for purpose in relation to this Bill. The weakness is that as a dispute escalates, first to Ministers of the devolved Administrations, which includes UK Ministers acting for England, the final resolution lies with UK Ministers. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, was concerned that the devolved Administrations might be the cause of delay, but I fear she underestimates the resentment of UK English Ministers overruling the devolved territories. That, I suspect, sadly helps explain the rather smug responses from UK Ministers: devolved Administrations may huff and puff, but UK Ministers can blow their houses down.

The Government have quoted examples from abroad to justify their approach but, ironically, they are mostly drawn from countries with properly established federal constitutions, notably Australia and Canada, where state and provincial governments’ views are fully involved in decision-making. In the case of Australia, a two-thirds qualified majority is required.

According to weekend reports, Michael Gove is establishing a unit to combat the SNP and its pressure for independence. I certainly believe that the largely unchallenged fantasy and lies which are fuelling the case for independence that would be so disruptive and damaging on a disastrous scale on top of Brexit and post-Covid recovery need to be challenged, but Mr Gove should have enlightened his colleagues that in its present form, the Bill will make his task almost impossible. Amendment 4 would greatly help him by delaying implementation of Parts 1 to 4 until an agreed approach is confirmed.

As the party with the deepest commitment of any to home rule—we battled for it for over a century—Liberal Democrats are determined to protect the devolution settlement against a centralising government in London and the separatist thrust of the SNP. Scotland’s best interests lie in using the powers that have been secured, ensuring they are not eroded and gaining a positive relationship with the other devolved Administrations and the UK Government. As we rebuild after a botched Brexit and a mishandled Covid-19 crisis, businesses do not need further disruption over constitutional arguments.

With the mechanisms in place and goodwill to seek the best for Scotland, the devolved territories and the UK, confidence can be restored. Ideally, the Government should abandon this Bill, which is at best premature and probably unnecessary but, so long as they push ahead, Liberal Democrats will push to secure this responsible and constructive amendment and save us from an unwanted and unnecessary constitutional crisis. Surely we have had enough disruption for one year—or even 10.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. Amendment 4 was ably moved by my noble friend Lord Fox, and I want to outline some further considerations based on principles and on practical considerations.

I start by reflecting on the important contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. I first met the noble Lord when he was the adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron in Downing Street and I was chair of the cross-party Devo Plus group in Scotland, which was arguing for enhanced powers for the Scottish Parliament, which subsequently came into legislation with the Scotland Act 2016. The noble Lord considered our proposals carefully, he has been a very thoughtful contributor to our debates and I look forward to the conclusions of his review on intergovernmental relations. The fact that he has asked for a degree of pause on what could be considered a constitutional rush is important and should be taken seriously. If despite his wise counsel and the thrust of the amendment—which has been tabled sincerely—the Government insist on moving forward on their current trajectory and in their current manner, it will be the first time in a quarter of a century that a major constitutional change will have been imposed on the nations without any form of public or parliamentary consent. That will not serve the start of a new functioning internal market well. The principle of consent is therefore not a theoretical argument; it is important at the political level for those of us who believe strongly in the continued functioning of the United Kingdom and its internal market.

That is in stark contrast with the following groups that we will be considering, where, as the Minister has heard, the frameworks process has been good and we have supported it. The fact that it has been supported across all parties and, indeed, the nations is important.

I reflected on the point indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which is that we need the Bill to prevent a veto by one of the nations. That argument would have some form of justification if we had seen that approach within the common frameworks. They cover the policy areas that are being repatriated: 154 of them, of which only four remain where there is not agreement whether they are reserved or devolved. Two of them will be resolved only after we know what is the agreement with the European Union, because they concern geographical indications and state aid—we don’t know what the Government’s proposals are for those two areas because we don’t know what the agreement with the European Union is. That will leave only two. For the 18 that require legislation, it is well under way to being proposed.

So it is not the case that there will be a major gap on the statute book at the beginning of January, and nor is it the case that any of the nations that are in receipt of these powers are seeking to exercise their veto. What those nations are asking, justifiably, is whether the powers being repatriated under the Bill—not the frameworks—are being constrained in a manner that is significantly different from how they were exercised under the single market in the European Union? These are justifiable concerns. So, with the greatest respect, I do not think that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, holds any water at all.

It is of concern that in the first group the Minister was not able to categorically reinforce what has been referred to so far, which was the agreement made among the Ministers of Wales, Scotland and the United Kingdom and the representative from Northern Ireland of the principles of moving forward on the framework agreement. I hope that, when the Minister responds to this, he will be more clear in supporting that. If the approach of this amendment had been followed from the outset, I believe that we would have been able to secure consensus, because it would have been consistent with the manner in which we have been approaching it so far.

The point that my noble friend Lady Randerson indicated, which I thought was a very powerful one and which I hope the Minister is not only aware of but very sensitive to, is that this Bill, probably more than most, brings into stark reality the fact that we do not have a federal Government, which means that there are not designated Ministers for England on devolved areas for England. So we will continue to have UK Ministers who will be operating both at a UK level and effectively as Ministers for England. When it comes to areas of the functioning of the internal market, which is about the four nations, and then separately a consideration at the supra-United Kingdom level, the direct conflict of interest that exists in a Minister making the decision in the interests of England, and thus being the arbiter of the approach of Wales or Scotland as to whether they are in breach of the market principles, is a very valid concern.

We have already heard the example of a decision made on legislation in Scotland, the deposit return scheme, where the Minister himself said in the debate on the first group that, under the Bill, it could be disapplied unless UK Ministers decided that it could be within the principles. Now UK Ministers will decide on that. The Minister is shaking his head. If he is shaking his head, it is on the basis of agreement—which is my point. Consensus would be secured on agreement for that.

What is certainly the case—and the Minister cannot shake his head at this—is that the Bill states that decisions made for England by the UK Parliament cannot be bound by any successor UK Parliament. But if decisions made in Scotland or Wales are overridden by the UK Parliament, those parliaments themselves cannot subsequently legislate within those areas. That is why paragraph 88 of the Constitution Committee report asked the Government to

“explain why clause 6 treats legislation intended for England differently from that passed by the devolved legislatures.”

This is the reality—which is why there is justifiable concern. If there is such a concern, what is a better way of approaching it? A better way, as my noble friend Lord Fox and others indicated, would be to look to other countries.

Before I move on to outlining why I think we could look at international precedents, I would like to pick up a further point regarding dispute resolution. My noble friend Lord Fox and I met the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord True, and I am very grateful to the Minister for sending a long letter answering the points that we raised in the question that we asked about when these issues would inevitably arise in disputes. The Minister’s reply of 13 October was very interesting. He said that

“dispute resolution between Administrations will be managed through the appropriate intergovernmental relations fora and are interlinked with the outcomes of the review of intergovernmental relations which is due to conclude in the autumn. The Office for the Internal Market will have a role in providing independent advice in the dispute resolution process.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My noble friend is putting me in the very difficult position of choosing which noble Baroness is correct. If I might venture to say, on the measures she has quoted my noble friend is correct. The Bill has no effect on minimum pricing of alcohol; that is excluded as a policy area, as are all pre-existing measures. This would also apply to carrier-bag prices. The Bill provides clarity and certainty for businesses, which is what we seek.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I take it as a little chink of victory that the Minister found it difficult to say whether he agreed with his noble friend or me. I will secure that as an achievement of the day, if he does not mind. I will return in a future group to minimum unit pricing and single-use carrier bags, because I am not convinced about that position.

I suspected that the Minister would refer to pesticides, so I took the liberty of reading the Health and Safety Executive’s board report on the framework, which has now been agreed, on pesticides and maximum residue levels. That agreement has been reached, so the concern the Minister is putting forward, of a threat to the operation of the single market, does not exist. That will be a UK-wide provision, and the regulations for Scotland are about policing it. The approach of the HSE has been well established for many years, and the regulation required to police this in Scotland is quite different from what the Government are asserting, which is the exercise of a power that would effectively prohibit goods from entering a Scottish market. That is notwithstanding the fact that if it concerns what is ultimately used for produce such as whisky, it is an industry standard, based on the minimum base that would be taken. The chemicals and pesticides framework from Defra and HSE has been resolved, so perhaps the Minister should stop using this an example. It is not convincing.

Regarding the office for the internal market, the Minister has now said something new: that the CMA, the parent body of the OIM, is involved in existing disputes under the Joint Ministerial Committee’s memorandum of understanding that was agreed after devolution. This will be news to the CMA. Can the Minister repeat that the CMA has a role in the Joint Ministerial Committee’s disputes, under the memorandum? That is what he said in response to the question, but it is not the case. As outlined in the Bill, the OIM has no role in disputes. If the Minister is saying that the dispute resolution mechanism for the internal market is the JMC memorandum of 20 years ago that was agreed for devolution, it simply will not work, because it does not provide for the operation of the single market.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord asked a number of questions, and I am sure he will be quick to write to me if I do not answer all of them. On the famous subject of barley and pesticides, he is correct, but the whole point about frameworks is that they are voluntary agreements. Any one of the Administrations can walk away at any time. We are committed to agreeing voluntary frameworks and will continue to take part in those discussions and advocate them, but the point of this legislation is to provide a legislative underpinning for all of the work taking place on frameworks.

Could the noble Lord remind me what the other questions were?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister and may well be writing to him on that basis, as he predicted. Can he clarify what the intended role of the office for the internal market will be under the CMA? In a previous answer, he indicated that it has a role in the dispute resolution mechanism in the devolution memorandum of understanding. My understanding is that it does not. Which is the case? If the intention is that the OIM has a role in the dispute resolution mechanism, there is no reference to that in the legislation.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The purpose of the office for the internal market is to provide advice, reports and monitoring to all four Governments and legislatures. It will have no direct role in dispute resolution, which will be a matter for the Joint Ministerial Committee to discuss.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said about the need for certainty, which seems to be the overriding approach. But, having listened to my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I would refer to the Food Standards Agency report, Food and Feed Safety and Hygiene Common Framework Update. Paragraph 3.15 states, in relation to adopting mitigating measures against mutual recognition, which we will discuss in another group on another day, makes a quite interesting point that

“where common approaches are taken, mutual recognition will not apply.”

If that is the case in this Bill, the common approaches across the nations—the mutual recognition and certainty that she indicated—will not apply. But we do not yet have full agreement on all the common frameworks, so how can that apply under this Bill, given that we have not reached the agreements yet? However, the Government’s own position is that mutual recognition will not apply if common approaches are taken on any regulatory changes. So which is it? Is it in this Bill or is it within the common frameworks?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am afraid that the noble Lord has the advantage of me in that I have not seen that bit of the food standards framework. I would rather look at his question again in Hansard tomorrow and reply to him in detail. I do not think that I am able to give him a full answer now.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, having spent six days in Committee on the Trade Bill debating how we make treaties, and listening to the Minister say continuously how we will be a trusted partner around the world, I, too, regret that we are having to debate how the Government have breached one and intend to breach more. Alas, I had hoped to hear from the Minister, in opening, why and when agreed processes in the joint committee with the EU, and in joint ministerial committees with our nations, broke down, and why those agreements could not be reached, necessitating this Bill.

I want to address Parts 1 to 4, and I do so as someone who was born and lived on the border between England and Scotland and represented a border constituency all my life. Therefore, in my personal, professional and political life, I have seen at close hand the daily interaction between laws, systems, standards, approaches, and regulations—everything from licensing, trade and speed limits to Covid-19 regulations, building regulations and others, many of which predate the European Union and that approach.

I have also seen at close hand the work within the framework agreements. I recognise that there are powers that are being repatriated. The 2020 framework analysis by the Government showed that of 154 policy areas where EU law interacts with devolved competences that are being repatriated, 115 require no framework at all, 22 require a non-legislative framework, and just 18 require a legislative framework.

The Minister did not refer to a defence of Part 5, but I was curious that he referenced whisky and the odd situation, which will be news to English barley providers, in which they cannot sell to Scottish distilleries. They have not been barred from doing so since 1933 in the first legislation, and there are no restrictions. It will be news to the distilleries, which buy their malted barley from Simpsons Malt in my hometown in Berwick, in England, that there is somehow some threat to this. I hope the Minister can clarify that point. Under labelling, composition and standards, that will be covered by the common framework. In fact, that framework was published on 9 October, so where is the necessity for these elements in the example the Minister gave?

The joint ministerial council approach on the frameworks was outlined in a joint communiqué with Ministers on 16 October 2017, in which it outlined the definition and principles of enabling

“the functioning of the UK internal market, while acknowledging policy divergence … Frameworks will respect the devolution settlements and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures … based on established conventions and practices.”

Subsequently, last year, in the Cabinet Office update, which the Minister responding to this debate is responsible for, the government frameworks said that a dispute resolution mechanism was progressing:

“The UK Government continues to seek development of a shared approach to the UK Internal Market”


and

“we are considering how to manage … framework areas”

going forward. However, this Bill, as the Constitution Committee reported, gave two days’ notice to the devolved Administrations of the text and has a litany of over 30 areas in which there will be no consultation or limited consultation, which will be overlooked, and in which England will be treated differently from the other nations.

It does not have to be this way. Both Canada and Australia, which the Prime Minister is very keen to quote, introduced internal markets in the 1990s. Canada introduced an agreement on internal trade that came into effect on 1 July 1995. After a premiers’ conference, Australia, which the Prime Minister wishes to quote a lot, reached an agreement on principles for a mutual recognition scheme. An MoU was signed and, very symbolically, has the signatures of all the premiers and the Prime Minister.

The border area is one area where we will be living with the consequences of this, and we have seen nearly a decade of significant division and polarisation. Please, Minister, do not force a Bill against the spirit of what has been developed over the last three years, which is consensus and agreement. Do not herald a bad omen for a decade of danger for our beloved union.

Trade Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, I was about to enthuse about the Government going in the right direction, but the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, have made me hesitate a little and I will wait to hear the Minister’s response to her. I am glad of the opportunity to probe exactly what the Minister’s intention is in tabling this amendment. I welcome it as a step in the right direction but I want to press him for further clarification, perhaps going in the opposite direction from the noble Baroness who has just spoken.

The amendment allows HMRC to disclose information to devolved Governments. That is fine as far as it goes—it would be totally unacceptable if HMRC were barred by default from releasing relevant information in this way—but the amendment does not necessarily require HMRC to provide information requested by a devolved Government and needed to undertake their responsibilities. HMRC is therefore presumably allowed to refuse to provide the relevant information needed for trade purposes if it deems it fit. Am I right that that is the Government’s intention and the effect of this amendment? If so, how do the Government justify refusing to provide devolved Governments with the power that they may need to require relevant information to undertake their trade work responsibilities? If it is their intention to allow the devolved Governments to have the information that they need and for HMRC not to be able to refuse to give that information, would the Government therefore consider a further amendment later to require HMRC not unreasonably to withhold such information?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, at Questions today the Minister indicated that he was on a mission to educate me—I see the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza in her place, and she was there—so I give the Minister an opportunity to educate me further with the questions that I have on this group. With regard to the previous question I asked, no doubt he will give me a full tutorial in response to the letter that I have written to him today in response to the very partial answer that he gave me at Questions.

I welcome the fact that good things happen, notwithstanding the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, when devolved Administrations are consulted. Even in the middle of the Lords stages of a Bill, sensible things can come about, so I support the Minister’s amendments. Still, I have a couple of questions.

The first is not about what is in the amendment but about what he said in his introduction, which contained a little more clarity about the use of the information. Very soon we will be getting legislation not only on the frameworks, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned, but on the thorny subject of the border operating model, including the legislation for the Kent access permit. I believe those regulations will include the power for our authorities to use automatic number plate recognition information, which enhances border port flows. I want to flag up to the Minister, although he may not wish to clarify this point today, that there will be concern if there is a lack of clarity about what information is fully anonymised, and will only ever be anonymised, and what information will be collected by the same authorities that will have access to, for example, automatic number plate recognition for those carrying out the businesses. We will have to be very clear, otherwise some of the concerns in the previous group and some of the concerns about disclosure will be heightened.

Clause 8(1) covers the power for HMRC to disclose information, but it also says, in brackets,

“or anyone acting on their behalf”.

It might be fully down to my ignorance but I am not entirely sure who that is likely to be and by what processes they are acting “on their behalf”. It has not been spelled out in the Explanatory Notes. Therefore, perhaps the Minister could clarify that because, as has been said, some of this information is sensitive, and not only to individual businesses. It is of strategic importance to the UK, and our competitors would probably quite like to have that knowledge too. If the Minister can explain who the “anyone acting on their behalf” might be, that would be useful.

While doing that, he might also be able to explain the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 75 says:

“Clause 8(1) allows HMRC to share data with public or private bodies”.


Can he give examples of the kinds of private bodies that HMRC would share that data with? The clause expands the sharing of data quite considerably. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I have no problem with the devolved Administrations receiving this information under the terms of this legislation, but my antenna is directed to the words “or private bodies”.

Paragraph 75 of the Explanatory Notes goes on to expand the extent of data sharing. It says:

“This includes powers to share data, when needed, with international organisations that oversee the world trade system (for example the WTO)”.


That goes beyond what the Minister said, which concerned the purpose of this measure regarding strategic border flow information. If data is collected to help the WTO oversee the world trade system, there might have to be some parameters for that. I am not saying that I would be opposed to it, but at the moment I think that it would be useful to have more information, if possible.

Clause 9 concerns the disclosure of information by bodies other than HMRC. Subsection (3) lists those bodies as the Secretary of State, the Cabinet Office Minister—we know that the Cabinet Office Minister is responsible for the border operating model and preparations for the new border processes after January—a strategic highways company appointed under the Infrastructure Act and a port health authority. Therefore, we might have a slightly odd situation when it comes to the management of our ports in Scotland and Wales, in that the authorities responsible for those ports will have the power under this legislation to receive the information but they will not have the power to do anything about it for their own ports. Would it not make some sense if that were tidied up to ensure that the devolved authorities were able to use that data under the strictures of this legislation for the ports within those home nations? I say that because Clause 9(3)(c) refers to a strategic highways company appointed under the Infrastructure Act, but that Act extends to England and Wales only. Why does it not cover Scottish and Northern Irish export routes? In addition, Clause 9(3) lists, at paragraph (d),

“a port health authority constituted under section 2 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.”

However, that Act does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland, so, as I said, we might have a really odd situation here. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that point and see whether it can be tidied up.

Finally, a similar point arises in relation to Amendment 89. I can understand the case that is being made for higher penalties, but, unfortunately, something similar happens with regard to the offences—under Section 19(7) of the 2005 Act—referred to in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The amendment would not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland, because the sentence for the offence of wrongful disclosure in Scotland is six months. Even the Government’s amendment would not apply to Scotland, and there is a separate offence within Scotland under that legislation. Assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, can clarify that point or indicate that he does not seek to extend an offence by eight times, I think that I would be satisfied.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am always mindful of and sympathetic to a Minister who starts out with a speech by saying that the amendments he is moving are minor and technical. That is a wonderful disguise for all manner of things, and sometimes things can unravel when you say that.

That said, in general terms we do not have any issue with the intention behind the government amendments. They seem perfectly acceptable, as other noble Lords have said. However, we feel that the Government might have been better advised to offer these amendments in the negative, as we and many other noble Lords have not generally had the option of voting in Committee. It would probably have been more appropriate to move the amendments on Report, and I hope that the Minister will take note of that point.

Colleagues in this Committee have asked a series of quite important questions this afternoon, not least about how these things will work for the devolved Administrations and how they might apply. The question from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about which borders were involved was particularly appropriate, given some of the chaos that might well ensue if we do not get a proper deal in the current discussions.

I myself have a question for the Minister. How will the border impact centre report its information to us as parliamentarians? Will there be regular reports? Clearly, we do not want individual data but it seems to me that that will be very important in order to understand better the flows at borders. It would be useful to us if we could understand how that information and data will be reported back.

Noble Lords made reference to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, and I will speak to that now. In the Bill as currently drafted, if information were passed on without authorisation in such a way that it allowed an individual to be identified, Section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, which deals with the offence of wrongful disclosure, would apply. This provides for a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment for such an offence. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to increase this penalty to five years’ imprisonment, as well as having the potential to fine a corporation by up to 4% of its annual turnover. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, took exception to that, but we think that this provision needs to have some detail, power and meat to it. I cannot answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, but I will take away his point and reflect on it after this afternoon’s debate. In general terms, we want to make sure that individuals are protected, and we do not believe that the current penalty acts as a great enough deterrent to stop parties acting carelessly and without authorisation. We believe that these proposed changes are proportionate and will provide that protection. We hope that the Minister will agree with that but, in any event, we shall be very interested in his comments on the penalty range as it currently is.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

Would the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, be happy if we returned to this at a later stage? Does the noble Lord particularly want to call a Division at this stage?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I know it is not in order in these proceedings to have points of order from Members, but a solution, given the very valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is to allow this pause to happen. It is highly unusual for government amendments to be presented in Committee and for the Minister to indicate that answers to questions raised in Committee will be provided after a vote for them to pass has happened. There is no ability for the House to reflect on the letter from the Minister. A solution would be for the Government not to press these amendments in Committee but to bring them back on Report, which may well happen very straightforwardly. That may well be the solution.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I am listening to the various comments from around the House. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester rose to suggest that he was against us moving the amendments. However, bearing in mind the mood of the Committee, we will withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and I have known each other for almost a lifetime, since his very young days as a student in Portsmouth when I was the MP. We did not agree politically, and we do not agree politically now, but we have been good friends and I have always valued his insight, experience and total commitment on a range of issues concerning our part in the world, developing countries, particularly in Africa, and our responsibilities towards them.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for this amendment. It seems appropriate that as we come to the end of our considerations in Committee on the Trade Bill we come back to human rights. I have always felt that trade and human rights have a complex and close relationship. The other evening, we were debating with real feeling, emotion and commitment the proposals on China from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and our deep concerns about the actions we felt would become necessary. I said in that debate and will repeat now that the problem is that there is genocide, which is very clearly defined and well established in international law and on which the issues are stark, but there is a whole range of issues on the edge of genocide or comparable with the situation under genocide but it is not a race or a people who are at stake but elements of a society. It is long overdue that we should have sensitive arrangements in our trade policy that would mean that we could respond to such a situation by taking appropriate action to bring home to those with authority in the country concerned what is at stake and the corrective actions. This amendment raises that point, and for that reason I was very glad to see it on the Marshalled List.

Of course, we have to remember our own responsibilities in this context. It is not just us as judge of the rest of the world. We must look at ourselves. It is simply not true that there is something called trade or business which is self-contained and separate from our concerns about humanity and the responsibilities of civilised values towards the cause of humanity. This amendment gives us the opportunity to do something about it in a graduated way and from that standpoint I think it deserves very full consideration.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for moving this amendment, which my noble friend Lord Chidgey signed and spoke to so well. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for presenting the amendment in a methodical, sensible and persuasive way. I agree with the thrust of the amendment: that we should have an opportunity in this House to debate substantially the scheme of preferences that we will have from January next because of the consequences they will have.

Trade and Agriculture Commission and Trade Remedies Authority

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, with all due respect, I do not accept the hypothesis advance by the noble Baroness. The Government have been clear that we will not sign a trade deal that will compromise our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. We are a world leader in these areas and this will not change.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Government’s extraordinary move to trigger the Parliament Act to prevent MPs from even debating a Lords amendment to the Agriculture Bill on a trade standards commission was described by the Tenant Farmers Association’s chief executive George Dunn as,

“a shocking piece of political chicanery to prevent MPs from a vote on this important piece of legislation.”

If, at Report on the Trade Bill, we seek to strengthen the Trade and Agriculture Commission, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, indicated, will the Minister assure the House that there would be no such chicanery, as described by the Tenant Farmers Association, and that we would be able to pass an amendment that the Government would allow MPs to have a view on?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to remind and perhaps educate the noble Lord on how parliamentary procedures work in this area.

Trade Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

39: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Conditions for trade deals: Sustainable Development Goals
(1) Regulations under section 2(1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent with, the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.(2) Any future international trade agreement not implemented under section 2 shall only be eligible for signature or ratification by the United Kingdom if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent with, the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.(3) Within 12 months of making regulations under section 2(1) or ratifying a future trade agreement, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report assessing how those regulations or trade agreement is making a positive impact towards the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause ensures that trade agreements cannot be implemented, signed or ratified unless they are consistent with the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I beg to move.

[Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I call the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke to Amendment 39 on Thursday and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, today. As I mentioned last week as we debated Amendment 12, our continuity programme is fully compliant with environmental obligations, such as those found in the Paris Agreement on climate change. So, too, is it fully compliant with the UN sustainable development goals.

I welcome and support the objectives of the SDGs, and I assure your Lordships that the work of my department is always in alignment with important multilateral commitments. As our continuity programme seeks to replicate existing EU agreements, it follows that it is absolutely coherent with existing international obligations, including the UN sustainable development goals, and it will remain so. On that basis, I believe that this amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 97 would oblige the Government to lay before Parliament a further assessment of the impact of our free trade agreements with the least developed countries and lower-middle-income countries before commencing the substantive provisions of the Trade Bill, and again every 12 months afterwards. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are determined to continue playing their role as an engaged partner to the developing world. We have signed continuity agreements with the CARIFORUM states, the Eastern and Southern African states, the Southern African Customs Union bloc and others. Discussions with further developing countries continue, and my department hopes to make good progress in delivering continuity before the end of the year.

In terms of questions that were raised on Thursday relating to communication and transparency, we are committed to providing Parliament with updates on our trade programmes with the developing world, which we are delivering through our parliamentary reports, where that is relevant, a regular and productive dialogue with parliamentary committees at ministerial and official levels, and a report which the DIT will make to Parliament. I remind your Lordships that we are seeking only to replicate the provisions of the EU’s agreements with developing countries.

Ultimately, we do not believe it is proportionate or sensible to provide reports every year, when our objective is continuity with the status quo. As our continuity agreements clearly safeguard such international commitments and the Government are wholly committed to the preservation and improvement of the environment, I ask for the amendments to be withdrawn.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken within this group, even with the slightly disjointed timing of breaking within the group. I wish to comment on a couple of things that the Minister said before I sit down. In so doing, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for the support of his party. These are cross-party efforts.

My noble friend Lady Northover, in her excellent contribution, said that our ability to negotiate around the world is helped by our good standing in the world. I think that is absolutely right. She referenced the Fairtrade Foundation, and our support for fair trade and the work of the Fairtrade Foundation is a major way to communicate how we see our trading relationships around the world. We on these Benches agree with free and fair trade—not no trade, which I think was the thrust of the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in this group.

My amendment is not a Trojan horse for those who seek to make the case against global trade; rather it is to put markers down that our trade should be of the highest ethical approach. That is why I was so glad to hear the contributions of my noble friend Lord Chidgey and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who both displayed real dedication on this topic. I pay tribute to my noble friend for his leadership of the All-Party Group on Africa.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referenced the fact that we should see our trade holistically: that is a very good way of describing it. We do not negotiate in isolation; often, we have bilateral trade negotiations but increasingly, as with the least developed countries, we are negotiating with regional groupings. They have their own development priorities, which we also support.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked where we are on the current trajectory. There was not a lot of information from the Minister on that. I can quote to her from the reply that Theo Clarke MP and I received from Greg Hands and James Duddridge on 16 September. We had written a letter in our capacity as co-chairs of the All-Party Group on Trade out of Poverty. The annexe to that letter, in reply to our request for information of exactly the kind the noble Baroness asked for, was rather depressing. The Minister said:

“The Government aim to see good progress”.


I think we all wish to see good progress. However, in regard to the SACUM EPA, which he referenced, of South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Eswatini, Lesotho and Mozambique, only South Africa and Botswana have ratified; the others have yet to ratify. There is a mixed situation on the Eastern and Southern Africa EPA, with Mauritius, Seychelles, Zimbabwe, Madagascar and Comoros. They are eligible to join the EPA but have not yet joined; therefore, it has not been agreed with us.

On the east African community, which I singled out in my speech, with regards to Kenya, the only information is that these are discussions that are ongoing. The Government said,

“You will understand that it would not be appropriate to give further details on the status of these discussions before they have concluded”,


but Kenya has been dropped from the ongoing engagement. I am not sure if it is in order to notify to the clerk at the desk orally instead of emailing him that I would like the Minister to respond to this, but I would like information about Kenya. The reason I think Kenya is so important is that it is where Theresa May, as our Prime Minister, chose to visit to announce that the UK would be the biggest investor in Africa in the G7 by next year. That target has been dropped, with little explanation as to why. The target is now:

“We want the UK to be the investment partner of choice”


for Africa. It is rather symbolic that, despite that announcement made in Kenya, it now looks unlikely that there will be an agreement with Kenya at the end of this year.

On the final regional grouping, of Ghana, Cameroon and Côte d’Ivoire, discussions are ongoing. It does not paint a very strong picture about how ready we are to trade on an EPA basis rather than a WTO basis on 1 January. The Minister also did not respond to the very good question my noble friend Lady Northover asked: if that is to be the case, will the Government ensure that we stand ready to support all those countries, so that there are no additional costs for trading with us on WTO terms?

On the previous group, I was interested in the response of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, to his noble friend Lord Lansley. The committee was told, on the point about having sufficient time to scrutinise some of these agreements, that there would likely be a cliff edge if some of them were made close to the end of the year, so that there would be insufficient time to allow an extended period of scrutiny by the committee. I was under the impression that, if we have reached agreement in principle under the WTO, we can provisionally apply agreements. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify, and correct me if I am wrong, that there will not be a cliff edge, but that we will be allowed some proper time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I have taken note of a number of questions raised by the noble Lord and I think it best to address them in a letter, so I shall write to him, while liaising with my noble friend Lord Grimstone.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 39 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

42: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Free trade agreements: impact assessment
(1) Before making regulations under section 2(1) an appropriate authority must produce an impact assessment of—(a) any costs to businesses arising from any additional regulatory requirements in connection with exporting goods and services from the United Kingdom in the course of a trade, business or profession; and(b) any additional costs to businesses arising from exporting or importing goods and services to or from Northern Ireland in the course of a trade, business or profession.(2) Prior to the ratification of any future international trade agreement not implemented under section 2, an appropriate authority must produce an impact assessment of—(a) any costs to businesses arising from any additional regulatory requirements in connection with exporting goods and services from the United Kingdom in the course of a trade, business or profession; and(b) any additional costs to businesses arising from exporting goods and services to Northern Ireland in the course of a trade, business or profession.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause requires an impact assessment is made of any additional costs to businesses arising from exporting goods and services from the United Kingdom, and within the UK’s internal market.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, has said on a number of occasions: trade agreements mean little if businesses cannot operationalise them and use them to export more and import better. We on these Benches agree: we believe that the UK should be in a position for prosperity if we can have the right trading relationships around the world. To do that, we need to know what kind of barriers exist, what levels of bureaucracy have been put in place and how the Government are supporting businesses to overcome them.

Paragraph 21 of the political declaration attached to the withdrawal agreement with the EU says that,

“the Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation”.

Paragraph 22 goes on to envisage “ambitious customs arrangements”. Our motor industry, held up by the Government and others as a success story—rightly so—has called repeatedly for full implementation of the Union’s customs code and for the UK to take a different approach from the one that it has so far in ensuring that businesses have as little bureaucracy and as few barriers to trade with the European Union as possible. The SMMT, representing the industry, brings to stark attention, in its January briefing, what we face at the start of 2021:

“Basing the new UK/EU trading relationships on the provisions permissible in a free trade agreement will significantly change the administrative processes related to the movement of goods between the UK and the EU. There is a risk that the trade agreement between the UK and the EU results in increased friction at the border. Delays to the arrival of components at manufacturing plants are measured in minutes. Every minute of delay could cost approximately £50,000 in gross value added to the industry, totalling over £70 million per day. For automotive manufacturers, border delays are unacceptably disruptive, and if the sector in the UK is to remain competitive, these must be avoided.”


Frictionless trade had been the mantra, we recognise that, but now it looks as if we are going to be having it on truly Newtonian levels. The Government have, however, not chosen to carry out impact assessments on their border operating model, on the new measures to be put in place, or indeed on the costs to businesses that are going to be exporting and importing. Instead, they have chosen some business estimates of costs and ignored others.

Officials, not Ministers, confirmed that the Government’s most recent estimate on the likely necessary bureaucracy at our border ports, first published by HMRC in December 2018 and confirmed by the Government, is that there would be an additional 215 million customs declaration forms for businesses importing and exporting goods. That would apply regardless of whether Britain and the EU conclude a trade deal this year with the aim of removing all tariffs and quotas, so that is likely to happen. Can the Minister confirm that that is the latest estimate and tell us whether the Government have asked HMRC to update any of the cost estimates in light of the publication of the new border operating model, and whether that is the basis on which we should go forward? If it is then, although we were told that there would likely be a net £9 billion saving from leaving the European Union, there would also be a £7 billion cost to exporters and £7 billion to importers annually, and an extra £1 billion at least for cost of preparation plus commitments for ongoing costs. But there is no impact assessment on the business burden itself.

I do not wish to relitigate any of the arguments about European Union membership—and I knew that would get some smiles from the Benches opposite, but I genuinely do not—but the question is not whether we go back; it is about how many barriers there are for us to go forward. These are legitimate questions, because on top of this, George Eustice, the Environment Secretary, told MPs last Tuesday that it was estimated that up to 300,000 export health certificates would be required from 1 January next year for agricultural goods—a five-fold increase on current levels. There is a genuine concern about the burden on rural businesses from the processing costs for official veterinarians to carry this out—if they are actually available. Do the Government have contingency arrangements for the turn of the year if there are difficulties in securing these certifications?

As our amendment relates also to burdens for Northern Ireland—and there will be ample opportunity to debate the internal market legislation that is coming—I want to refer to one element of the Northern Ireland trading relationship that has been highlighted recently by the Food and Drink Federation. The federation has said that, regardless of the protocol being implemented in full and regardless of the internal market provisions—wherever they might be in due course on the customs process—there are likely to be costs on goods travelling into Northern Ireland that must comply with EU rules governing customs, VAT, plant and animal hygiene, and product labelling. This is linked with 1.5 million tonnes of food and drink travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland each year. The Government have indicated their willingness to provide some funding for businesses from Northern Ireland to offset some of the costs for this, but can the Minister explain to us what the current level is?

This is all building to the necessity of asking the Government to report on what barriers and costs exist. We have received some indication from the border operating model to which I referred. We already know, from the document that was published last week—the 271-page border operating model—that this is going to add huge burdens at our borders. We know that there is a six-month deferral for our border processes because they have not been ready and that this is not going to be all that is necessary for this. However, what we did learn last week was that businesses are going to need permission to move their vehicles to Kent. The Government are going to require a statutory Kent access permit for businesses seeking to export from anywhere across the UK if they wish to exit from Dover. Therefore, not only do we now have a debate about unfettered access to Northern Ireland: there is not even going to be unfettered access to Kent on the M20 for those wishing to export.

We know from Michael Gove’s Statement in the House of Commons whose fault this is likely to be; rest assured, it will not be his. He said:

“Every business trading with Europe will need to thoroughly familiarise itself with new customs procedures and, whether they develop their capacity in-house or work with a customs intermediary, enhanced preparation is vital.”


This is two months away. He went on to say, referring to businesses, that,

“just 24% believed that they are fully ready.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/9/20; col. 961.]

Therefore, in addition to the grants of support and in addition to what the Government have indicated is going to be necessary for intermediaries, we know that there are insufficient numbers of those to support businesses.

I asked at Second Reading about the number of intermediaries recruited after the Government’s undertaking to help our exporters, but the Minister did not reply. I wrote to him, and he kindly sent me a thorough reply but without the information about how many intermediaries had been hired. Can he answer that today with up-to-date information?

Finally, businesses have been calling for some clarity on this additional bureaucracy, these new barriers to export and the new burdens on importers. If businesses are going to be taking up the greater exporting opportunities that might present themselves, they need to know in advance, with a degree of certainty, what kind of barriers and burdens they face. That is why these amendments are important. I hope that the Government support the principle of them: to have as much information out there as timely and accurately as possible. It is not just for 1 January that we need to prepare; it is ongoing. That is why I hope that the Government will support these amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I was quite surprised to find the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, concentrating on the costs involved in the border between the UK and the EU. When I put my name down to speak in this group, I thought it was about assessing the costs of our trade with other countries. Let me be clear: I am always in favour of ensuring that the Government identify the costs and burdens on business in all of their activities, so he will not find me opposing his amendment on that ground at all.

However, his amendment is very unclear, because it is not clear what the counterfactual is: costs compared with what? In the context of his subsection (1), which is about the rollover agreements, are the costs compared with the current status quo—that is, in the implementation period—or with trading on WTO terms after 1 January, or with something else? It is very unclear. In the case of subsection (2), presumably the cost will be compared with trading with those other third countries on WTO terms because that would be the counterfactual. It seems to be highly unlikely that we would enter into a free trade agreement with another party that involved costs additional to those trading on WTO terms, so the noble Lord’s amendment does not entirely make sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, of course I look forward to receiving another letter from the Minister. I hope that he can, at least in this one, give me what has so far proved to be very elusive: simple information in answer to straightforward questions on the current level of intermediaries recruited to support our exporters on the new border operating model. The industry had indicated, which Michael Gove had agreed with, that we require an estimated 50,000. HMRC said at the end of July that 600 had been recruited. All I have been asking is what the current level is—I do not think it is unreasonable for us to know. The border operating model itself explicitly encourages our exporters to use intermediaries because the customs procedures under this model are complex and burdensome. That is the point. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who gave the context of the real pressures on our businesses exporting.

Let me address the specific and very reasonable questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The amendment explicitly states that the costs to businesses are linked to additional regulatory requirements in regulations made under these orders. It simply is not the case that these agreements stay permanent once they have been made. Often, regulations will be required to be made in the lifetime of these agreements. I would hope that the Minister could confirm that any regulations brought forward would ordinarily have an impact assessment on the cost to businesses associated with them. The whole thrust of the last few years has been about not bringing in regulations without an impact assessment on business. That should be a straightforward thing for the Minister to confirm.

The second subsection of the proposed new clause is about new agreements, and again it is for any additional requirements to implement those agreements. There is not the necessity of a counterfactual, because they are to do with how the Government assess any additional costs to businesses from any new requirements on businesses. The reason I did major on the border operating model was this: it has of course become necessary because of us leaving the European Union, but it is a new border operating model for all exports, not just for exports to the European Union. The Kent access permit is not just for anybody wanting to export to the European Union but also to make sure that we have all of these in place. Therefore, it is right to ask what the cost will be for businesses doing that. It is also a simple fact that if they are likely to be necessary for the Kent access permit to be in place, then that will have an impact on our ports of exit for anybody exporting to any third country around the world. It is inevitable that there will be a spillover impact of any exports. I think it is justified to ask the question: what is the estimate of the cost for businesses?

Finally, I turn to what the Minister said, which was linked to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the impact assessments to be carried out on the new agreements coming forward with Japan and Ukraine. That is welcome, and I do welcome it. I was grateful for the Minister notifying me of the Written Ministerial Statement yesterday, which outlined that they would be in place. I welcome them, but the Minister will not be surprised that I think they are insufficient, as we have debated in Committee up until now. But I am grateful that this is on the record and that the Minister confirmed it.

Can the Minister also confirm that they will not simply be an economic impact assessment but a regulatory impact assessment? That is the point of the amendment in this group. It is not just whether it would be considered that there would be net economic benefits for the country, but what the net business costs are for exporters and importers, because they are not necessarily the same. Therefore, sector by sector, it will be helpful to know. If we do not have that information, we will struggle to answer the real point of the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: how do we get net benefit for our businesses in exporting, and how are we making them more competitive with others around the world if we do not have that level of business impact assessment for the regulations implementing our trade agreements?

If the Minister wishes to come back on that point, he may. He has indicated already that he will write to me, and I welcome that—if it can be done as quickly as his previous letters, I would appreciate that. I am not yet satisfied before I receive that letter, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 42 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I agree with him that we should advance these amendments. I will address them in the context of our debates on the Agriculture Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said when she introduced this group so well—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that all the signatories have made a powerful case for this.

I wish to focus on two areas. The first is the continuous issue that the Government should be very careful with their language about statutory standards and the protection that exists for them. The second is the trade commission and where we might need to go forward on this. I want to do it also in the context of what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about the least developed countries. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, referenced this in debate on an earlier group. It was also referenced in the House of Commons yesterday. Last week, the Trade Minister, Greg Hands, was reprimanded by the Speaker for using it to make a partisan point during an Urgent Question on trade—so it is a hot topic.

I was going to say that there is a degree of misinformation, but I am not alleging that the noble Lord would seek to misinform. But the reality is different from what is being put forward about what the impact on the least developed countries would be if we were to insist on imported goods meeting our statutory standards and did not accept imported goods of a lesser standard from the least developed countries. I find that deeply offensive to the countries with which we have negotiated a trade agreement, on the basis of everything but arms and the global scheme of preferences. Those trade agreements have included measures to support countries to meet the standards at which we would then allow imports. To say that we would allow imports of less good products at a cheaper rate because they are from a poorer country would be both against the law and contrary to the trade agreements that we have reached with those countries.

The noble Lord is right that we will come on to talk about global scheme of preferences and GSP+. As he knows, this is where countries have an agreement that does go beyond simply tariffs and regulatory standards. It includes, for example, husbandry, environmental practices and labour standards in supply chains, so that we do not import goods from companies that would break domestic law in the treatment of their staff. This is now the norm in trade agreements. I do not know why the Government are wanting to argue that, by maintaining and not dropping our current standards, we are somehow acting against the least developed countries. There were zero imports of beef and poultry from least developed countries last year, for these reasons. If the thrust of the Government’s argument is that this is a bloc, and we will now open up markets for these goods which do not comply with British standards, let them say so—but I do not accept it. That, no doubt, is something we shall return to.

This leads me on to my next point. What is the correct terminology? I hope that the Minister will be very specific in the way he sums up. He has the virtue of having the entire Civil Service behind him to enable him to be very specific. So he will forgive me if I am less specific, but perhaps, when he responds to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, he can be really specific.

Victoria Prentis, the Agriculture Minister, said yesterday in the Commons that

“our current import standards are enshrined in existing legislation. They include a ban on importing beef produced using artificial growth hormones and poultry that has been washed with chlorine … Any changes to that legislation would need to be brought before Parliament.”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/20; col. 69.]

As I understood it, the noble Baroness asked how the Government will consider what are statutory protections. Are they within the primary legislation, requiring primary legislation to implement them? Or is it the same as with chlorine, which I referenced in the previous group regarding information provided to me by the NFU?

The regulation states clearly that:

“Food business operators shall not use any substance other than potable water—or, when Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 or this regulation permits its use, clean water—to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin, unless use of the substance has been”


prescribed by the appropriate authority. The Minister said that the appropriate authority was the Food Standards Agency, which is correct. But the change to allow imports of poultry that has been treated with anything other than potable water can be made in a regulation, using the negative procedure, put forward by an agency. On reading what the Government said—that they would be required to bring forward legislation to change that—most people will not infer that. A change to a regulation by an agency, using the negative procedure, does not afford us the proper level of debate about the consequences.

That leads me on to the issue of what is an appropriate body to be an advisory body and to allow debate among those who have an interest, both producer and consumer. I am not sure I agree with the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. She suggested that a body such as this would effectively prescribe actions to the Government. It certainly could be a body based on parameters regarding the maintenance of standards. That is not uncommon for those bodies that provide information to Ministers or for bodies that the Government consult.

It is not the case that it is only those far more cynical than I who do not believe the Government on such issues. I am always willing to give the Government a fair wind and to listen to their arguments—although yes, their record might suggest that we have to be that little bit more careful. But I do not think that the Conservative Member for Totnes, the honourable Anthony Mangnall, or the Conservative Member for North East Bedfordshire, the honourable Richard Fuller—who last night in the Commons challenged Victoria Prentis about the trade commission, asking for its life to be extended and for it to be put on a permanent footing—fall into the category of not trusting the Government.

We do not need to labour the point that the Government chose to utilise the fact that the trade commission would require money for it to be set up and therefore it was not even debated by the Commons—the lengths to which the Government seem to go to avoid considering a Lords amendment on the Agriculture Bill are quite extraordinary.

This exchange from Hansard is very informative. Anthony Mangnall asked:

“… will the Minister look to extend the purview of the Trade and Agriculture Commission to longer than six months? It should be a permanent body that is established to scrutinise our trade deals.”

That is a reasonable question. The Minister replied:

“I am afraid that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not within my gift; it is a matter for the Department for International Trade whether the work and life of that commission is extended”—


and so I pass the ball to the noble Lord the Minister. She went on to say:

“It was set up in order to feed directly into our trade negotiations with the US, Australia and New Zealand. We remain open to listening to any concerns about the operation of the commission and will continue to co-operate with DIT to ensure that it meets expectations.”

Richard Fuller then pressed her on it being on the same footing, and asked whether it might be better if it was permanent, so as to cover all agreements. The Minister’s reply was very interesting indeed:

“Whether we want to set it up for future trade agreements is something to discuss another day, but I do not agree that it has anything at all to do with the Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/20; col. 72.]

Clearly, the Agriculture Minister thinks that it is over to the DIT now, with the option of re-establishing the commission when considering new agreements which are not with New Zealand, Australia or the United States. This is a very odd situation for the Government. Putting it on a permanent footing, as this amendment suggests, with a clear, forward-looking approach, is very sensible and far more pragmatic than the ad hocery of whether it should be set up again for new agreements. If the timing of the US, Australia and New Zealand agreements goes well beyond and into 2021, and the trade commission is wound up this December, will it be reconvened to look at a new set of circumstances on that basis?

The Government have unnecessarily got themselves into a bit of a muddle. This amendment, so powerfully moved by the signatories, shows the Government how they can think again and put the commission on a better footing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I have nothing to add to those perceptive comments from my noble friend.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I think that we will come back to this issue.

The Minister referred to Ghana as a good example. I referenced Ghana in the previous debate. We are still engaging on whether we will have a continuity agreement with it; it has not been agreed yet. The disruption in trade with Ghana will come if we revert to a non-EPA basis at the end of the year, rather than from anything to do with anything in this amendment regarding standards.

Can the Minister state whether we currently import, or will import, any goods from GSP countries or LDCs that do not meet our standards? My understanding is that we do not and will not. We offer them tariffs that are preferential to those for other countries if they have goods to be imported into the UK that meet the standards, because that is under the unilateral trade preferences scheme, but it is not standards that we seek to reduce. The Minister said that insisting on maintaining UK standards would somehow act against least-developed countries, but that does not apply because they do not currently export to us if they do not meet our domestic standards. I wonder whether he can clarify that.

Given that, yesterday, the Agriculture Minister did not categorically shut down the requests from MPs that the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s life be extended and sent over to the DIT, is the Minister’s mind open to the longevity of this Trade and Agriculture Commission? One of the ways forward could conceivably be to extend the lifetime of that commission; we could progress on that basis.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. We will come to GSPs in a later debate; if the perceptive points he made are not answered then, I will perhaps write to him. Secondly, I always keep an open mind about the matters that we debate. We will reflect on the debate that happened in the other place last night.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lord, I personally welcome the idea of the Secretary of State laying a report before Parliament. I have a feeling that the Secretary of State may not be minded to do so.

I am reminded of the fact that I started my political career in the European Parliament, where one of my functions was to advise my noble friend Lady Hooper, who very kindly found a letter from 1983 that I think we should frame. When I became a Member of the European Parliament for Essex North and Suffolk South, rather than an adviser to MEPs, one of the things I enjoyed the most was leading delegations of businesses to countries such as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and introducing them, through department of trade contacts, to their opposite numbers, prior to them joining the European Union. It seems a bit sad, now that we have left the European Union, but they have the benefit of all my good work in that regard.

I would like to congratulate my right honourable friend Elizabeth Truss, Secretary of State for International Trade, for being brave enough to appoint, to my certain knowledge, the first-ever agricultural attaché to China, based in Beijing. They have been there now for possibly two or more years. It could even be five years—time flies. The consequences of that single act have been magnificent. Malton Bacon Factory has been a beneficiary to the tune of millions every year because it produces pork, and we do not eat the parts that Chinese consumers take to be very appetising such as pigs’ trotters, snouts, tails and ears. The very fact that we have had a commercial attaché based there goes to the heart of what we can do. I think they are paid something like 80% by industry.

The thinking behind the amendment is very good, and I would like to see more of it. The balance is about right in terms of funding by the industry itself, but there could be some pump-priming from various departments, such as in the case I mentioned of agriculture. I hope we can learn from other countries such as Denmark, which obviously remains in the European Union. In its exports of food, particularly farm products, Denmark punches way above its weight, as we found when I led a small delegation there from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee from the other place. Denmark has a whole network in countries such as China, and indeed other European Union countries, where it uses a little bit of state funding but mostly industry funding to market, export and promote its own goods. This is something Deliciously Yorkshire has done very cleverly at a regional and national level, and I hope it is something we can roll out. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on this amendment in that regard.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for moving this amendment. It has allowed us to generate a very high degree of cross-party support, and it is to be commended for that. I will try to respond to a valid point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, with regard to how reports are put together and where they best fit. I hope she does not mind me saying from these Benches that she made a good point, and that she can accept that, but maybe we need to just tweak it. If we tweak it, we may generate overwhelming consensus on this point.

I preface my remarks by referring to the work of the new all-party parliamentary group, which was so well laid out by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. I declare that I too am an office bearer for that group. I commend the noble Lord, other members, and the International Chamber of Commerce on their energy and direction in getting this group established. The noble Lord will forgive me if I ask that he does not invite me to any 4 am calls with the group, but I will be glad for him to send me the minutes of any discussions. In a moment I will touch on why that might be important.

I have been involved in politics since before I was elected as a Member of the Scottish Parliament representing the Borders constituency, an area extremely rich in textile heritage and industry. Having been born and brought up in that region, I have an enormous admiration for exporters. They are in many respects unsung heroes and the work that they do in supporting the UK economy can never be overestimated. They are not only men and women who trade, but pioneers searching out competitive new markets. They have to overcome many barriers, from languages to what can be very bad behaviour by companies in other countries, often on very low margins. They are at the front end. We can perhaps help them with getting cross-party support in our new trading relationships going forward from next January. I hope that the all-party group will focus on that.

I hope the Minister knows that I am sincere when I say that I will look at the Japan agreement. I will be looking at whether we are securing better market access for our textile exporters as well as guaranteeing Japanese market access to ours. As for myself and many friends of mine in the Borders, we are still stung by the multifibre agreement and the “cashmere wars”, and we know some of the challenges. This has been a long preface, but I am passionate about this.

In many respects, the support that we need to give our exporters as we go forward will be meaningfully different from what it has been in the past. I want to reflect on the different profile of trade. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned this; I want to add some figures that I have seen from the WTO, which are quite stark. Between 1995 and 2015, the overall global most-favoured-nation tariff rate had declined from 6% to 4%; the tariff reductions had been very good. However, over a fairly comparable period from mid-2000 to 2015, non-tariff measures had grown from just over 1,000 to 2,500 as recognised by the WTO. By and large, that is because countries that are becoming more prosperous regulate their own domestic markets, introducing more standards—this links with the debate on the previous groups. On the one hand it is harder to export to those markets; on the other, those countries are operating on a basis comparable to us.

In many respects, the support that we give to our businesses allows them to understand some of these markets much more and to navigate their way around the non-tariff measures that those countries have put in place. Our whisky industry has become expert at this. In many respects, the Government learn as much from our whisky industry as many other businesses can learn from government about how to operate in the competitive global market; as we go into the “new world”, this will be important. As much as we want to advance and support our exporters, our competitor countries are doing that as well if not better.

Trade Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 8th October 2020 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

28: Clause 2, page 2, line 35, leave out “five” and insert “three”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reinserts a Government amendment made to the Trade Bill in 2018. It proposes to reduce, from five years to three, the time period during which (a) EU FTAs can be rolled over and (b) previously rolled over FTAs can be reamended.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is perhaps the shortest group that we have had on the Bill so far. Not only will Members of the Committee be relieved about that, but I think it reflects a high level of consensus among the parties that it would be beneficial to restore one of the elements of the Bill that was stripped out when this Bill was brought to us in this new Session. It was very interesting to listen closely to the Minister’s response on the previous group, where he highlighted some of the changes that the Government volunteered on the previous Bill to assuage concerns that had been raised over scrutiny. Well, I hope that he will not be offended when I say that this is one that should go back in. If he is on a roll—or perhaps the Minister of State will be responding to this group—I hope he will be equally open to some of the changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The arrangements that we have put in place in discussion with the committees for the Japan free trade agreement relate to the fact that we described it as an enhanced continuity agreement, which is why we have been putting it through enhanced scrutiny compared to other free trade agreements. This latest agreement, the Ukraine free trade agreement, will be scrutinised in the same way as other continuity agreements were previously scrutinised.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that response to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, because I think the Minister—and I hate to say this to him—is wrong. Parliament will not have the ability to scrutinise continuity agreements going forward that it did last time, because the Government have removed the reporting to Parliament on differences.

The Minister has just outlined the Ukraine agreement. I was happy to mention it and pleased to hear the Minister refer to it. If that helps continuity in our trade, I support it strongly, but what the Minister described as the title of the Ukraine agreement is not what we had. As I mentioned before, there were four different criteria or four different categories. We had a deep and comprehensive free trade area with Ukraine, and it does not sound as if we are replicating that. In the past, we had the fact that the Government were bringing forward reports to show any differences between the two. I am not sure if it is in order for the Minister to reply to this, having summed up—I do not think it is—but I am sure I will return to this further on. It might even be on the next group. There are potentially considerable differences and, under the Bill’s proposals, we would see that they are considerably weaker. I hope that the Minister might be able to reflect on that during the course of Committee.

I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and can clarify to her that these amendments relate to the sunset clause of the order-making powers. We will come to the TRA elements later on, but she raises good questions that we will discuss under the TRA aspect.

My noble friend Lady Kramer made a strong point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My final sentence, almost literally, is to agree with my noble friend Lady Kramer. She was indicating that if the purpose of these powers is to implement agreements, then three years is an appropriate amount of time for us to know if there have been any major difficulties, and whether a new agreement should be made.

We will of course reflect on what the Minister has said. No doubt as we discuss the next group, which includes Amendment 36, the Minister will have a response with regard to the duty for the Government to report “any significant differences” between proposed agreements and those that existed with the European Union. I am pretty certain that he will, given our discussion during the adjournment for the Division. I look forward to hearing that but, for the moment, I will reflect on what he has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

It is open to the Minister to respond to the question earlier, should he wish to do so. If he does not, is it your Lordships’ pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

35: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Parliamentary approval of trade agreements
(1) Negotiations towards a free trade agreement may not commence until the Secretary of State has laid draft negotiating objectives in respect of that agreement before both Houses of Parliament, and a motion endorsing draft negotiating objectives has been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.(2) Prior to the draft negotiating objectives being laid, the Secretary of State must have—(a) consulted each devolved authority on the content of the draft negotiating objectives, and (b) produced a sustainability impact assessment including, but not limited to, an assessment of the impact on food safety, health, the environment and animal welfare.(3) The United Kingdom may not become a signatory to a free trade agreement to which this section applies unless a draft of the agreement in the terms in which it was to be presented for signature by parties to the agreement has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.(4) Before either House of Parliament may be asked to approve by resolution the text of a proposed free trade agreement, the Secretary of State must—(a) consult each devolved authority on the text of the proposed agreement, and(b) lay before both Houses a report assessing the compliance of the text of the proposed agreement with any standards laid down by primary or subordinate legislation in the United Kingdom including, but not limited to, legislation governing or prescribing standards on food safety, health, the environment and animal welfare.(5) In this section—“devolved authority” has the meaning given in section 4(1) of this Act, and“free trade agreement” means any agreement which is—(a) within the definition given in section 4(1) of this Act, and(b) an agreement between the United Kingdom and one or more partners that includes components that facilitate the trade of goods, services or intellectual property.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause ensures parliamentary approval is required of the Government’s negotiating objectives prior to negotiations commencing towards a free trade agreement; and requires parliamentary approval of free trade agreements before the UK becomes a signatory to any agreements.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this group follows on naturally from the previous group and relates to parliamentary approval of agreements. In moving Amendment 35, I will also speak to the others in the group.

I was pleased on Tuesday last week to hear the Minister allay the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about the lack of parliamentary accountability in continuity agreements. He said:

“I reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh that the agreements that this amendment seeks to exclude have been subject to comprehensive EU scrutiny processes at mandate, negotiation and concluding stages. We were fully involved in those processes.”—[Official Report, 29/9/20; col. GC 31.]


Yes, we were involved through our MEPs. It is worth developing what the Minister was referring to a little further. I am grateful to him for bringing this comprehensive scrutiny process to the Committee’s attention. It prompted me to do a little more research, because I was interested in what he said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I will write to him and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble colleagues for taking part in this debate and the Minister for giving a comprehensive response. If we could legislate to guarantee a rational world, there would be unanimous support for it in the Committee. However, we will have to reflect on where we have got to whereas the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others such as myself who welcome what the Government are doing voluntarily, think that it should be the basis of a future statutory framework. I do not impugn the integrity of the Minister or his word, as I did not with the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, who spoke so well in this debate. It is very nice to see her making a speech. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, apologised if he had caused her tears because that means I do not have to—I thought it was me. I hope the fact that I have been citing her quite a lot does not give her more discomfort on trade issues.

While we do not impugn the integrity of Ministers, we want a sustainable mechanism. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referenced the attempts in the House of Commons and he is absolutely right that my Amendment 35 started with Jonathan Djanogly MP. I had very good discussions with him but the reason I did not lead on that is that I did not want people to think it was simply a cheeky initiative. It was an initiative by six Conservative MPs in the House of Commons but I think it has genuine cross-party feeling behind it.

I am glad that the Minister gave a reassurance about the report that will come on the Ukrainian deal and on all others, going forward. I am still perplexed as to why the Minister is comfortable giving the assurance that all subsequent agreements will have a report, yet the Government do not want to reinstate an amendment which would guarantee that. We will just have to reflect on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made an important point on timing and certainty and I was grateful to her for giving the example. The noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, will remember the debate that I activated through the CRaG process because the Government had chosen not to bring a debate to the House of Lords. I activated one on the Faroe Islands and the Minister admitted, very graciously, that there could be improvements on consultation because, on a fisheries deal with the Faroe Islands, there had been no consultation with Scottish Ministers. That was quite breath-taking but the fact is that it happened and was corrected, so we were able to move on. It helps that there have been examples of this.

The next point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I want to address it. My noble friend Lady Smith related the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, think some of us are just animals with insatiable appetites to get more and more powers. I am just a wee timorous beastie here; I am just trying to do my best. I am not threatening or insatiable, or anything, but I am glad that she mentioned the Constitution Committee report. I took part in that debate and read the committee’s conclusions. The noble Baroness is right that paragraph 76 of the report said that the committee did not argue for Parliament to have a resolution on the negotiating objectives on any treaties. That is one point. However, she did not state the rest of this paragraph—I hope, Minister, that this is accurate research—but I can quote it. It said that

“for significant or controversial treaties, the Government will want to ensure that it has the support of Parliament at the outset of negotiations in order to secure ratification to the final text of the agreement.”

Now, we are in the realms of how that is done: either through informed consultation and debate, or through having a resolution on objectives in order for the Government to consider their mandate to then be stronger because it has parliamentary backing. That is the area that I am in.

That report was on all treaties. Jack Straw was referring to some of the sensitivities with Spain over the treaty of Utrecht. We consider a huge range of treaties, from relatively minor ones through to nuclear non-proliferation. But, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, there is consensus that deep and comprehensive trade agreements go far beyond simple tariffs and quotas. They will impinge on consequential domestic legislation, and therefore this is justified.

That is why I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, came back to the Minister. It is why Canada, for example—which the Minister referred to—has a federal-provincial committee on trade and a federal-provincial committee designated to agriculture, for example. The provinces are involved. They have a formal role and there have been federal state clauses in treaties that Canada argued for. Canada has a dualist system, as we do. Australia has a treaties council with the Prime Minister, the chief Ministers and the state premiers, if it wishes to activate it. The Minister sought to respond to my comments on Japan. I am glad he did, but he did not—and I am happy to be corrected—deny that Japan will have a vote in both houses of the Diet on the agreement to authorise the formal signatures.

Ultimately, the Minister asked me whether I am happy that the Government have gone above and beyond CRaG. Yes, I am delighted. I want it not to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, at the discretion of Ministers or for us to allow Ministers to decide whether it is appropriate. Going beyond CRaG once means that it is harder not to do it, and I am pleased about that, but for it to pass the Jeremy Corbyn test, or even the Jeremy Purvis test, I hope to have some kind of discussion on a framework.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, referred to the fact that my amendment went through the House of Commons. There was a vote on it. The Government also chose not to progress the amendment in his name. We will reflect on this before Report, but I warn the Minister that there has been sufficient support for putting mechanisms that go beyond CRaG on the statute book to warrant this coming back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 35.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

39: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Conditions for trade deals: Sustainable Development Goals
(1) Regulations under section 2(1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent with, the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.(2) Any future international trade agreement not implemented under section 2 shall only be eligible for signature or ratification by the United Kingdom if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent with, the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.(3) Within 12 months of making regulations under section 2(1) or ratifying a future trade agreement, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report assessing how those regulations or trade agreement is making a positive impact towards the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause ensures that trade agreements cannot be implemented, signed or ratified unless they are consistent with the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee, which is no doubt fed up of hearing my voice. I declare an interest for this group, as I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Trade out of Poverty, I am a member of the APPG on the SDGs and I was co-chair, with the Nigerian Trade Minister, of an inquiry into trade and development in the Commonwealth. I thank my noble friend Lady Sheehan, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for supporting this important amendment.

The SDGs are a major advance in seeking consensus on achieving major advances in human development. When I took the 0.7% Act through the House of Lords, I did so knowing that we would be putting the platform for our overseas development assistance in statute, and that we would be a world leader, both morally and practically, in implementing the SDGs. Many are off track and hard work is needed to see them implemented, especially in the context of Covid-19.