National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Committee stage
Monday 16th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, would she perhaps give permission for us all to receive the Minister’s response to her letter? He is saying from a sedentary position that he will circulate it; if that is acceptable to her, it would be very helpful. He said at the outset that if we, as Members of this House, carry out activities for a foreign organisation of which we might be a member which receives direct support from a foreign principal—we could be a trustee of an organisation funded by the Gates foundation, for example, and there are many other examples—for us to engage with each other, we will now have to register. That is why I think the response to her letter could be so significant, as that is what I took from his comments.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The Minister will understand that I cannot possibly answer this question because then we would have to record the conversation. To be serious, in fact, my letter to the Minister, which included a lot of questions, did ask that he circulate it to the Committee and not just to myself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, as we are in Committee, I think one can intervene a second time. I just want to ask the Minister about one of the questions I put about political parties; I think it also arises now, from what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said. It concerns the confidentiality of all these masses of reports. What privacy protections will be there if this measure goes ahead?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the best estimate of cost is £47.8 million. The high estimate is £62.4 million. In addition:

“FIRS could discourage business activities if the costs of compliance are considered too high. There is a risk of negative reputational impacts from inclusion on a public register. Other countries may introduce reciprocal measures to regulate the overseas activities of government and businesses. Persons could be prosecuted if engaged in unregistered activity, even if the activity itself is legitimate.”


“Benefits were not monetised … While there are many entities which would fall within the definition of a ‘foreign principal’ or ‘foreign power’, it is difficult to determine how many people are being directed to undertake registerable activities on their behalf, or how many people would qualify for an exemption under the scheme … There is also a lack of understanding around how likely the positive and negative impacts are … it is not known how likely it is that the benefits or impacts will occur, or how significant they are likely to be. It is also important to note that much of this feedback was provided before the scope and exemptions within the scheme were finalised.”


“It is acknowledged that the number of people who would be affected by the scheme in terms of registration and familiarisation is unknown … Due to the offences and penalties associated with non-compliance with the scheme, organisations that are ultimately out of scope will still need to be aware of the FIRS regulations to ensure they are out of scope, both currently and for future activities … members of the public will need support in fulfilling their registration requirements.”


“There is a risk that the scheme may have a disproportionate impact on small or micro-businesses (SMBs). There is a risk that SMBs, without established regulatory compliance procedures, won’t register with the scheme and could then be prosecuted. It is not known how many SMBs will be in scope of FIRS … With more time, a more extensive commission could have been sent to departments.”


The high estimate is that more than 371,000 individuals will need to be familiarised with the scheme, but:

“Home Office anticipate that there will be a relatively small number of cases per year for FIRS (less than five).”


Those are all direct quotes from the Government’s impact assessment on this scheme from October 2022. That impact assessment is the least ringing endorsement of any piece of legislation that I have seen in this House for 10 years. More than 371,000 people will need to be familiarised with a scheme that will have five potential cases per year and, of course, the scheme was not consulted on. To be fair to the Home Office, I read the consultation document from 2021. The principle of a FIRS was in it, but this scheme was not. It is in many parts a direct lift from FARA in the United States, or the FIT scheme.

However, the Government have been very coy about the areas where they have not chosen to follow. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated the commercial enterprises. The Government have not said why they chose not to follow the United States’ example of the exemption of bona fide commercial activity and other activity not serving predominantly a foreign interest. Therefore, the whole gamut of the points that she and others have made in this House will be covered by this scheme and not that scheme, but why is not indicated. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment goes beyond that, saying that they do not know how many small businesses will be affected by it, yet the impact assessment of the overall Bill and of this scheme says that there will be 25 people in London operating the scheme at a cost of nearly £50 million. This spider’s web is a very expensive one, and not many hornets will be covered, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said.

The other exemption that the Government have not indicated having referenced before concerns the US exemption on religious, scholastic, academic, fine arts or scientific pursuits. There has been no indication as to why the Government have chosen not to follow that route. There is not a bishop on the Bench, but any Anglican community in or established church from another country interacting with one of our bishops will have to register on this scheme, because there is no religious exemption for it. Any community in this country carrying out what they believe the Pope has asked them to do for campaigning, on what they believe are humanitarian grounds, will have to register under the scheme. Any of us, or any MP, who is encouraging others to support a Ukrainian NGO charity, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, indicated, asking us to support Ukrainians for the resettlement scheme will have to register on the scheme.

This is likely to be a scheme that helps oppressors around the world far more than it helps our Government to secure national security. It is no surprise to me that both Hungary and El Salvador cited with great enthusiasm the US scheme as a mechanism to find out what those in other countries are doing to encourage human rights and civil liberties at home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

There are a lot of them.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

There are a few, but 25 members of the Home Office are going to be monitoring this database, and a fair amount of their time might be taken up with David Cameron’s and Tony Blair’s international activities. What was the reason for differentiating from the Australian scheme?

We have heard concerns about the British Academy, universities, INGOs and NGOs, trade, and those seeking contact with FDI and the ABPI. It will render the work of our Prime Minister’s trade envoys that much harder when any interaction with an entity from a country with which we are seeking a better trading relationship now has to register in advance their contact with a trade envoy, not only for perfectly legitimate activities but for activities encouraged by the Government. We have also heard the concern from the ABPI that it will have to register the preparation and planning of meetings beforehand.

At the start of Committee, I indicated that our Benches did not see this part of the Bill as having been properly prepared. The details have not been consulted on and we believe that the Government should pause it. We said at the start of Committee that it may find a better home in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, if it is being reworked. It may be that we move for this to go to a Select Committee for further consideration or to be taken out of the Bill. We do not want to disrupt the Government’s moves to improve national security or to weaken the ability of our country to have national security. We also do not want to weaken our interaction with trade, investment and human rights, or—I say this as someone with no faith—our proper interaction with many faith groups, which will now have to register all of this activity within the Bill.

I hope that the Minister will say today that the Government are going to think again, pause and come back, not just by saying that more information will follow but with a commitment to consult on the specific schemes and work with us to bring back workable solutions.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, I have added my name to the second of the amendments in this group. There are two parts to the Bill, as we know. One arises from the trade talks, where the Government may want regulators to talk to their opposite numbers in relevant third countries. The other, which is what we are looking at now, is about enabling—or maybe requesting—regulators to process overseas qualified people where there is deemed to be a shortage here. Unmet “needs” is the word used. That is where I and some of the regulators have some concerns.

In many sectors, such as nursing, it already happens. Structures are in place and there is no need for the Government to intervene. The powers are there, everything is fine at the moment. However, there are two serious questions that need answering. First, is there any danger that consumer interests are at risk if underqualified people practise here because the Government say, “We have not got enough of that particular profession”? I do not need to go into why that is a risk; it is fairly obvious.

Secondly, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, covered, is how the shortage is to be defined. He already referred to why high fees are not always an appropriate measure. Sometimes, there are high fees because there is an international shortage; the price is set on an international market and therefore bringing in more of that profession would not solve anything. Or will it be defined by users or consumers who need those services? Amendment 6 sets out some far more objective criteria, which is why I was happy to support it.

Since we are on this bit, I should raise the other concern of the Law Society, which was not raised earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It does not expect to be covered by Clauses 1 and 2, but were they to be applied to it, and should the SRA get involved in such discussions, the Law Society wonders whether this would jeopardise the perceived independence of the legal profession as seen abroad by foreign Bars. Clearly, the consultation is very important, but—I am not saying that it said this because it was high fees—I think it would have a concern if there appeared to be any interference by the Government that would in any way question the independence of the legal regulators, which I know is so important for our international reputation in the world of law. For the moment, the main issue is the definition of where there is unmet need and whether the assurances will cover what we have set out in Amendment 6.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and to agree very substantially with what she said and of course, the noble Lord, who made a strong case. I, too, commend the Minister because, as we have indicated in previous groups and as my noble friend said, the Bill may have had a pause, but the Minister did not. He and his officials have worked hard in engaging with us and with those who will be affected by it.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it is nice to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Clearly, she and I were doing the same thing on Sunday afternoon; when everyone else was out enjoying the rain, we were sitting at our computers waiting for letters from the Minister. When I have finished speaking to Amendments 63 and 68, I am sure that, if he were to indicate the Government’s willingness in principle to accept them, the House would give him leave to give such an indication and save us from having to go through the whole group.

In respect of Amendments 45 and 46, respectively moved and tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it is clearly right that an arm’s-length regulator, which now also includes the Legal Services Board, should not have the same legal requirements to provide regulators’ information to the assistance centre, and nor should it be caught by the other requirements that apply to front- line regulators.

As we have heard, 160 professions were originally caught by this legislation; as late as the Minister’s letter to me of 18 June, it was still 160 professions. The first time round, of course, it was the 57 varieties in the letter to the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Garden, on 24 May. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, even the new list is “indicative”, although we were not told that the first list was indicative. I received the Minister’s letter at 2.16 pm on Sunday afternoon with some amusement because, as the noble Baroness said, we now have 60 regulators and about 200 professions. As I think she indicated, you really could not make it up.

Legislation has been drafted without the department even knowing which bodies are covered. It has then had to correct or revise it quickly afterwards to add, for example, recognised supervisory bodies, because it has just realised that the Companies Act and the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations include them. As we heard, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has been added. We had specifically been told on 5 June, and again as late as 18 June, that the ICAEW was not included; we now find that it is. As the Minister’s letter was not private, I shared a copy of it with the ICAEW. It emailed to say that

“it feels like government seem to be rushing through this legislation without having thought through the detail of the Bill and its consequences, and parliamentarians”—

I think that means us—

“are now having to try and fix this. For the list of regulators and professions affected by this Bill to have changed so substantially while the legislation is being scrutinised … does not help give certainty on such an important and wide-ranging legislative measure—a point hopefully the Minister would recognise.”

I mentioned the Legal Services Board, which is now included in the list when it was not before, but the list still lists the Law Society of England and Wales as the regulator of solicitors. I would have thought that it would be more appropriate for the Solicitors Regulation Authority to be listed. The SRA has written to me, to say:

“We would support the SRA being named on the face of the bill”.


It is rather surprised that the Law Society is mentioned. That was undoubtedly correct under the Legal Services Act 2007, but it should now be the SRA because it has recently been established as a legal entity. Clearly, even what we had on Sunday still needs correcting, and it needs correcting now, rather than at some point in the future.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, the Minister’s letter says that the Government are still testing the list, and will make it public only after that. That really is not sufficient. The Government should not only know which bodies will be covered but have consulted them prior to drafting the Bill. It is no good finding out now that new regulators have not had the chance to put their pennyworth in, and that their specific remit, structure and the way they work clearly cannot have been considered because they have not been consulted.

I think that the noble Baroness and I both agree that it is also not adequate, even when the list is finalised, simply to have it available somewhere in the ether once the Bill is enacted. How are professions regulated by these bodies, or indeed foreign professionals who might want to be authorised here, to know whether the Bill covers them and whether it covers a list of regulators? Saying that there is a list on GOV.UK is insufficient, because who would know to look there to see whether there was a list of regulators covered by the Bill?

This is a powerful Bill. It will enable a Minister to mandate a supposedly independent regulator to put certain processes in place—our Delegated Powers Committee calls it a Henry VIII power. These professions are regulated in law but supposedly with an arm’s-length approach, up till now, as to how they gain and retain their professional standing. A new law would give powers to Ministers over these professional regulators. How can it be possible that those regulators are not listed in the Bill? Of course it must be possible to add or subtract regulators as they change their titles or merge—the sort of thing that happens over time—but it cannot be right to add in a new regulator at the whim of a Minister with no by your leave from Parliament and no mention in legislation.

Amendment 63 would therefore add in a reference to a schedule listing the regulators covered by the Bill, and Amendment 68 comprises that proposed new schedule. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested, given that it was a copy-and-paste, it is not now as accurate as I thought it was when I tabled the amendment. That is not my fault; the list was from the Minister’s original letter. Unless the Minister will now accept the amendment in principle, the amendment I will table on Report will be the corrected version. Perhaps by then the Minister will have been able to confirm that all statutory bodies covered by the Bill have been identified and consulted, and to provide us with a list of which of those 60 regulators do not already have the power to recognise overseas qualifications and therefore might not even need the Minister’s authorisation, as allowed for in the Bill. As I said, if the Minister will indicate now that he accepts this in principle, then I am sure that we can shortcut this.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I have been a Member of a Parliament—either the Scottish Parliament or this Parliament—for nearly 18 years now. I cannot remember a government proposal for legislation that is so catch-all and which would have powers to amend primary legislation with whatever it wants, by whoever it wants, whenever it sees fit. For the Government not to know who the Bill will apply to while it goes through Parliament is unacceptable. Therefore, although I support all the amendments in the group, I also support the call for the Government to take their foot off the accelerator and pause, so that not just Parliament but the Government themselves can properly scrutinise who will be impacted by the Bill.

In many respects we have an indicative Bill, not an indicative list of bodies. We should not have indicative Bills presented to us. If the Government want to do this properly, there are well-established measures for presenting draft Bills. A draft Bill would probably have fleshed out all these aspects, and allowed those groups to indicate whether or not they will be part of the framework, whether they want to be part of it, or whether they desperately do not want to be. At least we would have known. When I say “we”, I want to be all-inclusive, and I include the Minister—he would have known as well.

It is not just a question of whether the Government know which regulators and regulated professions will be in the framework. The impact assessment also includes a number of those that will not be in the framework, which is equally important. Do the Government also know this list? Otherwise, there might be some horrible kind of purgatory, where some of these bodies do not know whether they are on the way to legislation, and so are in a holding pattern, or whether they will not be part of it.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in the Minister’s letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, yesterday—which I hope has been circulated to all those who have been participating in the Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated—the Minister cited the reason for moving away from what he termed the “prescriptive and unpopular” EU-derived system of mutual recognition across members. The next sentence says:

“But it did at least give all regulators [Inaudible] a means to establish international recognition routes with EU member states.”


The Government say that it was “prescriptive and unpopular”, so they want to do exactly the same. However, there is not the same kind of protections on the regulators at the moment for their operational independence if they decide not to enter into an agreement. There will be substantially good reasons why they may not want to, and they were outlined by the GMC on its response to the Government’s consultation on the CPTPP.

The GMC has indicated that the approach of the UK regulators in many areas has gone beyond simply looking at the areas listed by the Government in this Bill, which we debated at our first Committee sitting. The regulators on health and certain other areas look at the broad fitness to practise, the background education and the ability to verify the educational standards in country of that applicant. Unless they are satisfied with that broad range of all the other areas, they do not wish to have mutual recognition. However, this is where the problem arises: in the future, it might be desirable that we have mutual recognition in professions with applicants from a certain country, but not yet. It should be up to the regulator and there should be independence when making the decision that a country’s standards on the education and training route for that applicant were not sufficient to meet UK standards.

At the moment, there is insufficient protection in Clause 4, because, as the Minister keeps reminding us, it is purely enabling, and could be completely undermined by Clause 3. The powers in Clause 3 can, in effect, force the regulator to move. It is not simply the slightly benign word that the Minister used in his letter— to “encourage”. Perhaps I am alone in being slightly cynical, but whenever I hear the Government say that they want to encourage someone, then that someone should be worried. It is not simply about encouragement, however. Clause 3 allows for that regulator to move to start the process of a mutual recognition agreement.

There is another reason why I think this probing amendment is justified, and I hope that the Minister can offer the reassurance that the noble Baroness seeks. The Government do not seem to know what the problem is in regard to many of the regulators yet, but they want an answer to them all under this. This comes at a great cost, because this Bill, as the impact assessment indicated, may well cost up to £42 million. These costs are passed on to the applicants. The Alice in Wonderland nature of it is that the Bill’s stated purpose is to reduce the fees for those applicants. However, it is the regulators who want to avoid a situation where they are forced through an MRA agreement to have a fee system imposed on them by the Government. That is why the justification for the voluntary nature of it is very strong. If the Minister were able to say that he would consider adding to Clause 4, which offers the kind of reassurance in statute that would be required, we would be more amenable to be assuaged.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I seek the Committee’s indulgence—I did not want to keep popping up in the last group—because there were some unanswered questions which I had posed. I am sure that more letters will come, but I asked the Minister to make it absolutely clear that Clause 3 was talking about more than just a regulator setting up a process and possibly accepting applicants. Perhaps he could write about that, because he went on to say that nobody objected to the new EFTA agreement, but that is only about a process. There is a big difference between asking a regulator to put a process in place and telling them what the outcome has to be.

Regarding this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said on the last group, mutual recognition agreements between willing partners are to be welcomed. They work and we like them. It is about professional movement and all the things that we are in favour of. Clearly, if they require a legal basis, then it is helpful for that basis to exist. However, I need some examples, even if no one else does, of what legal basis would be needed for a mutual recognition agreement. I quoted in the earlier group the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which said that an MRI may need to be implemented in law, yet we have had no examples of what type of issues would need to be so implemented; that is, going beyond what a regulator can do at the moment. Perhaps either now or in correspondence, we could have some examples of that.

Amendment 30 must be right, because surely it is not for a Minister to require in law—it goes much further than encouragement, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said—for a regulator to enter negotiations with another overseas regulator against its will. We are not talking about when it wants to do it. We are telling it when it does not want to do it that it must. This needs some justification by the Minister.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward these amendments. She is very modest and did not tell the Committee whether they are considered opposition amendments, but, if it is not too unhelpful for her, I will say that I am very sympathetic to them. We have been considering them very carefully.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, quoted the interesting response from the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. I think it was fairly clear that the Government intend to have these powers to, if they so choose, change the ability of the regulators to set fees for applicants. The Government will take those on board and then, for international trade purposes, set the fees for applicants. That changes the responsibility of the regulator quite dramatically, especially since many regulators, under law, have to seek approval from the Privy Council or the Scottish Parliament to do so.

I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, whether she might respond to the two times I asked the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, about whether any of the regulations under this Bill will impact the oversight and accountability of the Privy Council regarding the setting of fees and the professional standards authority regarding its oversight. If the Government cannot, in Committee, offer reassurance on that point, then we are in a separate situation of considering the relationship of the Privy Council and Scottish Parliament.

If the Government intend to have the new powers now under the provisions of Clause 1(5)(e), which makes

“provision for fees to be paid in connection with an application”,

we have to look very closely at the impact assessment with regard to the impact of the Bill on fees. In their impact assessment, the Government have said that there is a high cost of this Bill of £42.82 million and a best estimate of £18.16 million. Let me be fair to the Government and take their best estimate of £18 million. The impact assessment says:

“These costs could be passed through in fee increases to professionals”.


I raised the staggering costs of this to professionals—the applicants—at Second Reading. The Minister responded that I should not be too concerned because this was not cost to the Government. It is not—it is to the applicants. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I agree; the Government do not have money—it is taxpayers’ money, as we are always told from that side of the House. The people who will be paying £18 million for this are the applicants. The Government say they want these new powers to reduce fees, but by implementing these powers the fees are going up. What is their plan, given that one completely contradicts the other?

The Minister may be able to help me out here as I do not know, but it may be that the Government are using the Home Office forecast of a 70% reduction in applicants from the EEA and Switzerland as a result of leaving the mutual recognition arrangements with the EU. Paragraph 90 of the Government’s impact assessment says that this

“may save resources by no longer assessing applications. It should be noted however that these regulators will also no longer receive the fee revenue attached to these applications.”

We could see a 70% reduction in the foreign fee applications, with an £18 million increase in this bureaucracy, which the Government say is going to be paid by British applicants.

I hope that the Committee is following me. If it is, I will refer back to the Department of Health and Social Care’s live consultation on the medical professions, which says in paragraphs 71 and 72:

“Four regulators (the GMC, GDC, GOC and the GPhC) can set registrant fees without any Parliamentary oversight. The remaining regulators can only implement fee changes with the approval of the Privy Council and, in some cases, of the Scottish Parliament ... We propose that all regulators should be able to set their fees in rules without Parliamentary oversight. This will make regulators directly accountable to registrants for the fees that they charge.”


However, this Bill will not do that; in fact, it is completely contrary to the proposals in the consultation for the medical professions to remove parliamentary oversight. The Bill is putting it in.

If that were not bad enough, the current situation for regulators setting their fees, as paragraph 73 says, is:

“Any fee changes, including those to put in place a longer-term approach, would require consultation.”


The Government are proposing—this relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about where the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, could fit—to put these regulations in place, with these provisions on fees and extra costs, through the negative procedure without any consultation. The Government are not only contradicting what they are saying to the medical regulators at the moment but weakening the ability of—or the requirement for—regulators to consult on who would pay these fees in the first place.

I would be grateful if the Minister could neatly wrap all this up for me because I am really struggling to work out whether BEIS or the Department of Health and Social Care is in charge of this situation. The impression I get at the moment is that no one is.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I will dwell on Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. As he said, delays to services may not have anything to do with the workforce, although they may. I put my hands up: I live in a cladded building at the moment, and we feel strongly the lack of specialist fire surveyors to get things going. Therefore, one may have unmet demand for all sorts of reasons. Another one—save I would not want to say it to the ex-Secretary of State for Health—might be that the Government just do not spend enough money on the health service.

The issue that I really wanted to raise is not that one—I just cannot help teasing from time to time, as the Minister will well know—but the other point that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised. In that letter sent by the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, on 3 June to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is in its report of Monday, the Minister said—it has already been quoted—that, in ascertaining whether there is an unmet demand for a particular profession, “delay” could be a factor. More surprising to me to hear from a Minister on that side of the House was his reference to “high charges” charged by the profession. Normally, that side of the House in particular would stray away from any government intervention in the setting of fees by professions or indeed any other service. As a consumer representative, I have often gone to the CMA or other regulators, saying, “We’re being ripped off”, and they say, “No; as long as the consumer knows what they’re paying beforehand and has the chance to take themselves out of the contract, we or the Government do not get involved in the fees charged to consumers”. As such, I find this unusual because it sounds like the Government are saying that if they felt that lawyers or surveyors, for example, were charging “high” fees—that was the word that the Minister used in the letter, not “excessive”—they could bring in regulation to open up the profession to outsiders. I hope that I have got that wrong, but it looks to me as if that is what this says, or it could be a way of defining it.

In a later group, we will come back to how we deal with skills shortages, and we will make comments at that point about the Government’s responsibility to fill any such shortages. However, at the moment, I ask for some explanation about whether it really is possible for the Government to put themselves in a position of defining whether a professional is charging excessive fees and, if so, being more sympathetic to bringing in overseas providers. Some clarity on that would be appreciated.

UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Thursday 10th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Well, yesterday’s Statement already seems an age away as we now contemplate a no-deal exit with even bigger threats to our economy and to Northern Ireland’s by the introduction of tariffs on our food and consumables, and a big hit to our exports as they face charges and bureaucracy that for some could spell disaster. We know that the border plan still leaves Northern Ireland businesses uneasy, as the temporary measures to ease transition from 1 January only highlight the long-term red tape and costs that will then appear.

Mr Gove’s three-month “grace period” for supermarkets from export health certificates—at £200 a piece—on animal products, and his six-month exemption from meat having to be frozen before export, simply indicate what we will face without a deal, when all goods for Northern Ireland would need import declarations. Northern Ireland trade groups worry that, while Mr Gove focuses on tariffs, it is the bureaucracy created that will change the relationship of Northern Ireland businesses and consumers with those in Britain. Even as Ministers keep repeating the PM’s December mantra:

“We’re a UK government, why would we put checks on goods going from NI to GB or GB to NI?”,


in fact civil servants and business know full well that paperwork and checks are exactly what is coming down the line.

I turn more broadly to the so-called negotiations with the EU, which are sounding more and more like the prelude to a no-deal exit, with the Prime Minister this evening even asking us to prepare for that. We on this side of the House are desperately aware of businesses struggling through the pandemic that do not know whether they will face tariffs in three weeks’ time, or even whether their import/export channels will work.

At the start of Brexit we on this side were worried about workers’ rights and jobs, but today we seem closer to the concerns of businesses—traditionally upheld by the Conservatives—that simply despair at the Government’s disregard for their futures. Again and again over the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, Ministers have said that businesses need certainty—but that is the last thing the Government have provided. It is not simply about tariffs and paperwork; it is about data adequacy, so that information flows can continue, and about driving licences and rules. I have to say that I personally am less than happy about the suspension of drivers’ maximum hours. I do not fancy driving down the M20 alongside lorry drivers who have been driving well beyond their regulated hours.

Nor is the lack of a deal just about the economy. Our security is also at stake. SIS II, Europol and the European arrest warrant are tools that are essential for our safety. And as for waving through changes to customs rules that the Government admit will put the security of the UK border at risk, does the Minister agree that the new customs safety and security procedures regulations sound like a smuggler’s charter, in addition to compromising our border security?

I hope the Minister is not tempted to repeat the nonsense that his colleague in the Commons voiced earlier today, about Labour undermining negotiations by asking these questions. It is the Prime Minister who is undermining negotiations, whether by Part 5 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill or by unrealistic demands that only the EU, and not the UK, must compromise. It takes two to tango. The EU knows where the problem is, and it is not in this Parliament.

Today, Mrs Mordaunt urged

“all colleagues, whatever their political … imperative, to put our nation first over the next few days”.

Hear, hear to that. But please will she also address that to Mr Johnson, so that he puts our nation first, and agrees a departure deal to safeguard our security, our businesses, our consumers and our environment? His words tonight bring no reassurance, as he triggers the preparations for no deal. That is not a good signal to negotiators; it is not a good signal to business.

It is interesting that, after the referendum, Ministers from this Dispatch Box claimed that it was immigration, and the desire to end free movement, that led so many to vote for Brexit. But today we are told it is all about sovereignty—that that is why people voted for Brexit. Sovereignty is a word the Minister uses quite often—but is it a sovereign nation that jeopardises trade, security and well-being by refusing to work alongside our near neighbours and main market?

Ursula von der Leyen speaks of a partnership agreement. Partnership: I like the sound of that. So I ask the Minister, given that there are 27 sovereign member states willing to put their citizens first by supporting trade and engagement, should not the UK be willing to put our citizens first, protecting their security and economic well-being by constructing a future partnership deal that avoids: the food price rises we are warned of; the tariffs on exports; the no entry to EU countries due to Covid, with which we have now been threatened; new driving licences and insurance documents; expensive or unavailable health insurance; customs posts and traffic delays; and threats to our manufacturers who are dependent on imports? Is that really too much to ask from this Government? Will the Minister, even at this late hour, urge the Prime Minister not simply to go the extra mile that he has promised but to go as far as is needed to get a deal that is in the interests of the whole of this country?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip for facilitating a substitution on our Bench, and I am glad that the Minister is keen today. Will the noble Lord allow this House to debate the content of the technical papers as a result of the agreements that have been reached? We know that the Statement in the House of Commons was just one part. The statement from both the Vice-President of the Commission and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was very brief, but it alluded to a series of technical papers that will have far-reaching consequences for the operation of Northern Ireland and GB trade, as well as the other areas that are the responsibility of the joint committee. Will we be able to debate them?

During the passage of the Trade Bill, I have said repeatedly that one of the founding principles of my party was fair, free and open trade. We want to see businesses, large and small, across all countries in the UK, prosper. I do not think anybody could fail to have been moved, listening to “The World at One” on the BBC today, when a businessman in Northern Ireland, representing family businesses, laid bare the reality of the new costs that the Government are imposing on businesses doing their work. He said that, for his business, even with a deal with the European Union, he was looking at extra administrative costs of £150,000 —or, as he put it, four or five people whom he will not be employing.

The totality of these costs was highlighted by the announcement today of a further £400 million, which is going to offset the cost of bureaucracy and business burdens rather than being invested in people and our economy in Northern Ireland.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in the Statement that he wanted to see the border operating model for Northern Ireland

“fully operational on 1 January 2021”.

We know from the euphemisms about a grace period, or, on the border operating model, a phased introduction, that it will not be fully operational. In fact, it will not even be partially operational. It will not be ready. Ministers in this House and the other place have repeatedly blamed businesses for not being ready, when the Government themselves are not. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer specific questions today from across the House.

There was reference during Commons questions on the Statement to new border facilities for Northern Ireland

“in order to ensure that these limited and proportionate SPS checks”—

checks on live animals—

“can be carried out at the port of Foyle, Warrenpoint, Belfast and Larne”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/20; col. 851.]

These are in addition to what we have always had at the port of Belfast, which has typically been checks on live animals coming across from Scotland. When will these four new ports be operational? Why is there the need for this expansion, if the Government’s mantra is that there are no additional checks? What extra checks, other than SPS, will be carried out on goods going from GB to Northern Ireland under this agreement?

The director at the port of Larne, Roger Armson, spoke to the Northern Ireland Assembly in October, raising concerns about the lack of clarity on the new system for IT at the border and the goods vehicle movement system. He said that given that 40% of cargos head south, it is vitally important to secure clarification. There is still no clarification, so can the Minister say when they will be able to have it?

In the Statement, the Minister said that the agreement will

“allow some EU officials to be present at Northern Ireland ports as UK authorities carry out our own procedures.”

This is the first time that foreign entity staff will be supervising UK staff at our ports. Where will they operate from? This Minister—the noble Lord, Lord True —said on 12 May:

“There is no reason why the Commission should require a permanent presence in Belfast to monitor the implementation of the protocol”.—[Official Report, 12/5/20; col. 655.]


We now know that there is, so how will it operate for these foreign inspectors?

The Minister could not answer simple questions with regard to goods that are packaged in Northern Ireland going to GB, and vice versa. He said that there is no clarity in the first phase but he was hoping that there would be some information very early in 2021. He said, “This is what I am advised”. What can he advise the House now as to when businesses will be clear about the information that they need to put on their goods—goods that are either packaged in Northern Ireland or goods that are going to be moved from GB to Northern Ireland? We need answers.

In its paper on Monday this week, the Chamber of Commerce agreed that it needs answers. That paper made grim reading. Of 35 sets of key questions which they had signposted with a traffic-light system, only 11 were marked green—meaning that they have been given satisfactory answers. There were 19 at amber and five at red. One of the red questions was about what food labelling will be in place. We know that there is a grace period but is it purely, as the Statement said, to allow supermarkets to prepare? To prepare for what? Has the decision been made about whether foodstuffs going from GB to Northern Ireland will have to have EU or UK labelling? A grace period is only that if we know what happens at the end of the three months. Where is the clarity?

It is not just businesses that have not had answers. On 12 November, I asked the noble Lord, Lord True, what labelling would be required for goods. I will quote from Hansard:

“My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord on his very specific point about labelling.”—[Official Report, 12/11/20; col. 1141.]


I have not had a response. I reminded the Minister’s office on 30 November and had a courteous reply from his private secretary, saying that the letter had been commissioned and that he would chase it. I still have not received it. It is not only businesses that are not getting answers but parliamentarians.

We knew that there would be no contingency arrangements for Northern Ireland in the event of no deal when the Government made their announcement earlier this year about some of the potential new checks that would be put in place, plus the new infrastructure and new costs on business. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated, we know that there are no contingency arrangements in place for Northern Ireland when the Prime Minister comes to prepare for no deal, so all these questions are valid.

Regarding the rest of the UK and the announcement from the Commission today regarding contingencies, we will potentially have what is often euphemistically referred to as an Australian deal. But even Australia and the EU have an air agreement and a number of agreements that do not require contingencies to be put in place in just a matter of days’ time. The Commission said that the United Kingdom would be subject to these arrangements if they are equivalent. I quote the Commission’s paper:

“These arrangements would be subject to the United Kingdom conferring equivalent rights to air carriers from the Union, as well as providing strong guarantees on fair competition and on the effective enforcement of these rights and guarantees.”


That is the same for air, haulage operators and others.

Will the Government give such equivalent rights, so that if we are to prepare for the worst we can at the very least ensure that there is equivalence for the contingency arrangements that will be in place? That will remove at least one element of confusion on top of other burdens and costs that businesses will have to face in just a few days’ time.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

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

[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.