Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord’s endeavours. He and I have debated with Ministers on many occasions the interaction between the CRaG process, our international negotiations and the regrettable times when there has been, to some extent, circumvention of that approach. Therefore, I am glad he has put forward his amendment to seek clarification, as he outlined.

I have Amendment 441 in this group, which is a probing amendment to test a little further the Government’s thinking about the interaction with treaty state suppliers. It is my understanding that the countries in the schedule are only those with which we have an agreement where there is a procurement chapter or some procurement elements. It has not entirely been spelt out; I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that this is the case.

When I looked through those countries, I noticed that there is not a single country from Africa in any of these arrangements. It may be that none of the EPAs we have rolled over have procurement chapters. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked a question, and I ask the Minister whether that is the case. For example, in the SADC agreement, we have a chapter for co-operation which may lead to formal procurement agreements. I will be grateful if the Minister can simply clarify the reasons why those countries are in Schedule 9 and others were left out. It may lead to a couple of jarring interactions on the approach, but I am sure the Minister will be able to clarify that point.

My second question relates to our debates on the interaction between the UK system now, including guidance, and treaty state supplying nations. In a debate on Monday, I asked questions relating to exclusions. For example, on human trafficking and slave labour, why is it only a discretionary ground if a supplier would have met a threshold of having a prevention order, whereas if they had met the threshold of a conviction, it would be a mandatory exclusion ground? We in the All-Party Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavey have lobbied hard to ensure that, where there are serious allegations of modern slavery, forced labour or human trafficking, there are mechanisms that UK purchasing bodies and supply chains can automatically trigger. This could bring in some grey areas. I do not believe that is the Government’s intention, but it could be an unintended consequence, especially when it comes to very large frameworks and supply chains within those countries.

I will give an example regarding one of the countries in this list, Colombia. We have debated the human rights situation in Colombia with regard to the agreement we have signed. The EU paused the agreement, but the UK did not. There are very few mechanisms in this Bill where we can use the rest of the text of the Colombia agreement on human rights as a triggering mechanism when we procure from organisations or state enterprises in Colombia.

This is just my ignorance, so the Minister might be able to clarify this: are state-owned enterprises in treaty state countries treated the same as private sector companies? I assume they would be, but it opens up a different area of concern for me.

The second linked area is on human rights elements. We have an agreement, and are looking for future agreements, with Israel. The Minister will know that, under the European agreement that we have rolled over, there had been a clear dividing line when it came to the illegal occupation of Palestine. As I understand the Bill, when it comes to technology companies or other companies, it will be very hard for contracting bodies in the UK to consider whether services provided will meet the equivalent criteria for goods imports for those within the Occupied Territories. I would be happy if the Minister would write to me on that specifically, rather than give me a response at this moment.

There is a wider concern regarding this Bill when it comes to how a contracting authority would consider fair competition in procurement. On the Australia agreement, we debated whether produce that came from Australia that was manufactured or reared in different ways and on industrial scales provided unfair competition for UK suppliers. Australia also uses pesticides that are banned in the UK. There is an interesting clause in the Australia agreement that allows for those contracting bodies to

“take into account environmental, social and labour considerations throughout the procurement procedure”.

My amendment lifts text from the Australia agreement and suggests that this should be uniform across all agreements, if that is what the Government consider a gold-standard agreement, as they told us it was. The Australia agreement is broadly in line with what we inherited in the European directive, which had the requirement to take into account social criteria and environmental and labour factors. We have adopted that for the TCA, but it is absent for other treaty state suppliers.

For example, our agreement with Japan has no social or labour considerations in the procurement chapter in Article 10.9. I do not know why—that is a separate issue; we have debated the Japan agreement—but I have not been able to find any consistency in any of the treaty state suppliers. I understand that this Bill will then provide that consistency, and it will either be above or below treaty obligations, which I find curious. For example, unless my amendment is accepted by the Government and the Bill is changed, our legal requirements will be less than our treaty obligations in our Australia agreement. I do not know how that is going to operate when it comes to legal challenges.

It is also potentially the case that there will be inconsistency in application. I simply do not know how contracting bodies are going to navigate their way around this, especially as the Minister says so much is going to rely on guidance. In many of the areas, when it comes to the previous group that we were debating on conflict of interest and on other requirements in the Bill, a contracting authority will have to satisfy itself that the treaty supplier meets all of the criteria in this Bill. I do not know how it will do that when it comes to taking into consideration the other ethical factors or conflicts of interest—what are they going to ask a treaty supplier from Colombia, for example, unless there is some stronger mechanism?

The Minister might also help me with something that has been puzzling me. I do not know why, when it comes to operating no discrimination in relation to treaty state suppliers, that does not apply to Scotland. For Scotland, the Bill provides only that there “may” be regulations which mean that there cannot be discrimination. With the Government’s amendment requiring consistency with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, which means that there cannot be any internal discrimination, I do not how that is going to interact. The Bill currently allows Scottish Ministers, for example, to say that they will be able to discriminate against certain treaty state suppliers on the basis, perhaps, of the overall human rights record of that treaty state—of which Colombia or Israel may be an example. I do not know, so I am hoping that the Minister might be able to help me with that.

Finally, I am not sure how investigations will be carried out when it comes to treaty state suppliers. Of all the areas we discussed previously regarding the grounds for the investigations by the PRU, which the Minister said will be a non-statutory element that will pursue these, I do not know what powers the PRU will have to secure information from treaty state suppliers. There is no mechanism under this Bill, and unless the provision of information is provided for, as happened in the Australia agreement, I do not know how the PRU will get that information. On all those areas, I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me, because at the moment I am fearful that there is a rather high level of opaqueness.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 443A, in my name, to Clause 83. The amendment is, very simply, to leave out

“A Minister of the Crown”,


and its purpose is to remove the power from Ministers of the Crown to make regulations under Clause 83. It may be the case, because this relates especially to the situation in Scotland, that my noble friend the Minister is not able to reply this evening, so I would be very grateful if she could write to me, and I can then share that with the Law Society of Scotland, which has raised this matter with me.

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2022

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for introducing the regulations before us this afternoon, which I wholeheartedly support. I have two points of information that I would like to raise with him at this stage. On the first SI, No. 7, is he prepared to go further than the regulations before us this afternoon? I think that he was one of the Ministers I contacted about six months ago when there was a serious cyberattack on a transport firm in North Yorkshire. I was extremely disappointed at the time, although this is not a personal reflection on my noble friend, that I did not seem able to get any support for the company through normal channels such as Ministers like his good self and my noble friend Lord Grimstone.

I entirely endorse the thinking behind the regulations before us today, that we want to degrade the military effort of the Russians. I have no doubt whatever that these successful cyberattacks by a rogue state that is generally understood, in this case, to be Russia, have targeted a number of transport and infrastructure companies. Prior to that, they targeted a number of clothing companies. The one that is, perhaps, most significant, and is in the public domain, is FatFace, which I understand had to pay something like £1 million in ransom. I find it unacceptable that companies should be told that, at the moment, we do not have any means of counteracting these cyberattacks by hostile states such as Russia. I would like to understand where we are with this; if not today, because I have not given my noble friend any advance warning, I would welcome a written undertaking that could be shared by those contributing to the Committee this afternoon.

It is unacceptable that Russia has been able to fund its military aggression in Ukraine, and potentially also against countries such as Finland and Sweden, which are not part NATO, should they wish to apply to NATO. My reading of the situation is that the crime that Ukraine committed in the eyes of Russia and President Putin was in its wish to join the European Union and become a member of NATO. I declare an interest in Scandinavia, being half-Danish. If the Russian aggression goes as far as the Finnish border—which is huge, about 1,000 miles—if they were to be successful in Ukraine, and then had a full-frontal attack on either Finland or Sweden, that would be a very precarious position for the United Kingdom and our partners, and erstwhile previous allies in the European Union. That is in connection with SI No. 7. Can my noble friend update us on where we are in response to cyberattacks and in thwarting any attempt by a hostile state, such as Russia, to raise funds in that regard?

More briefly, on No. 8, I declare an interest in that I drive a diesel vehicle, which are heavily relied on in rural areas. In north Yorkshire and the north of England generally, diesel vehicles are vehicles of choice, particularly in inclement weather. We are not out of the woods yet; we may have a snowfall yet before spring is over. So, in bad weather—and also as a vehicle of choice for farming and off-road—we rely on diesel vehicles. I would like to understand the implications of targeting the fuel industry, to which my noble friend referred. I had no idea how dependent we are on Russia for our resources of diesel oil. I would like to understand what the alternative sources will be, and whether this will contribute to the ever-rising cost of diesel fuel.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns, and I do support the regulations before us this afternoon.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, as always it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and the very valid points that she raises. As someone who lives in and represented a rural area, I know that she speaks with great authority. We support these measures and, indeed, since we last debated, we have seen the continuing, grotesque practices of the Putin regime. It is now clearly in a strategic phase of seeking to demolish whole areas of Ukraine and make it virtually uninhabitable for the people. This is closer to what the President of the United States described as genocide. While I know that that has been debated frequently in this House in other contexts, it is starting to look increasingly like this is the practice of Putin. It reinforces the need for the urgent capture of evidence of the war crimes that he is permitting.

We also support the other measures and their corrections. I understand when the Minister says that they were moved at pace—but while they have been put forward at pace and we support them, there are certain elements where we have been behind our allies in these measures. On the Liberal Democrat Benches and on the Labour Benches, we have called for action to be stronger and sooner.

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for setting out the instruments before us, which I am delighted to say I support most warmly.

There seems to be a general trend in each of the statutory instruments that I have participated in, and that is that corrections are being made. I understand the pressure and the timeframe that my noble friend and the department are under. I wonder whether he can set out to us what the corrections are that he had in mind; I am sure they are only minor.

I do not want to detract at all from the scale of the sanctions that my noble friend has set out today, but given that most of the items that are the subject of the regulations before us, such as Russian ships, may have already been moved out of our area and that those who had finances in UK banks may have already moved them, how confident is my noble friend that we are sufficiently targeting sanctions to degrade the Russian economy in the way that my noble friend has set out, which I entirely support?

Each set of regulations sets out that there could be unintended consequences. In particular, paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations sets out:

“There could also be unintended consequences, such as a negative impact on bilateral trade.”


I do not intend to criticise the Government at all for the sanctions we have imposed. We realise that there will be a quid pro quo, but I wonder to what extent my noble friend has had discussions with European Union countries and a wider international grouping, particularly as regards the assessment they have made of the inflationary impact and the potential shortage of food.

We have seen the cost of fertiliser, household fuel and diesel rise. I admit that I run a diesel car, and I have been staggered. I have seen the cost rise from £1.72 to £1.92 per litre, and I am told it will go higher. Properties off the grid in this country are dependent—as I am in the north of England—on oil-fired heating. I did not realise that we are dependent on additives and diesel from Russia. I wonder what other sources we might be looking at in that regard.

I am mindful of the fact that, since we left the European Union, we have been particularly dependent on Ukrainian workers, as we were told by my noble friend Lord Benyon in answer to a Question in the House recently. Ukrainian workers make up 75% to 80% of those who pick our local crops of fruit and vegetables. As we near the time of year when that happens, we will have to look at how we can work on the supply chains in this regard. Also, I know for a fact that DFDS carries a lot of supplies between continental Europe and the UK. It is a slightly separate issue, I know, but to what extent might the supply chain be impacted by the fact that we now have this little difficulty with P&O Ferries? I hope that it can be resolved.

Although I welcome the sanctions, I am concerned about whether we will be able to handle and deal with the impact of higher food prices, which we are seeing in the shops. Those of us who live in rural areas are seeing that impact on the cost of deliveries in the cost of diesel, the cost of heating fuel and the other measures that I referred to. However, I wish my noble friend the Minister and the department every speed in hopefully bringing the Russian invasion to a swift conclusion.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, as always, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness on these issues. As is customary, she asked some really practical questions in her contribution. I share them, living in a rural area and having formerly represented a constituency that, both for industry and for individual families, will operate under a similar set of new circumstances with new costs. It is inevitable that some of the consequences of this horrific aggression by the Putin regime mean that we must diversify part of our energy dependence in certain areas and that some of our trade in certain areas may have to be changed. This is not just in the UK; it is also with our wider trading partners, which I will touch on in a moment.

I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I support them. They address some of the issues that were raised in the Chamber when the Statement was repeated and the Government announced that sanctions would be forthcoming, particularly in maritime, insurance, financial services and aviation. I will touch on those briefly in a moment.

The Minister is absolutely right that the sanctions put in place against the regime and the state apparatus should be as tough as possible. I think that they can go further; I hope that we will be able to debate some areas in the coming days and weeks, with the Government taking the next step. It is welcome that more than 1,000 individuals have now been named but, regrettably, the Government have been slower than some of our partners in identifying individuals and putting in place the legislative regime.

As the Minister said, the conflict is now entering an even more horrific stage . As the Russian advance falters in many areas, it is resorting to tactics seen in grim fashion in Chechnya and Syria: systematically razing whole communities to the ground; terrorising populations; directly and indirectly targeting civilians; and knowingly targeting mothers and children. These are war crimes that are being seen clearly daily. Therefore, part of our sanctions regime must be complemented by further activity to ensure that there is no impunity for these crimes. We are not in the realm of prevention; we need to move over to the phase of punishment.

On the other hand, the ongoing resilience and bravery of the Ukrainian people, who are sacrificing their lives for the hopes and aspirations of liberty and the freedom to choose their partnerships and alliances—and, indeed, to join the European Union—is literally awesome and inspiring, even in such grim circumstances. We will have consensus in this Committee, but I want to put on the record that I share others’ general revulsion at the Prime Minister making a connection between the Brexit debate in this country and this horrible war. I hope that the Minister will distance himself from such remarks; I do not think I would hear the Minister say that in the Chamber, but it was a jarring moment.

Free Trade Agreement: Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Thursday 14th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am delighted to congratulate the noble Earl on securing the debate before us and on the work of his committee as well. I add my congratulations to my noble friend the Minister for negotiating this free trade deal. I have three short questions, if I may. All the other rollover agreements that we have looked at—I am thinking in particular of the agreement with the Faroe Islands—have been very asymmetrical in nature and I am sure it was a source of some concern to, in particular, the Scottish fishermen to see that we were probably taking three times more value of fish from the Faroe Islands than we were exporting. My first question is against the background that I welcome the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that it will bring benefits both to Yorkshire and the Humber and to Scotland. I press my noble friend, in replying to this short debate, to confirm that this free trade agreement is more symmetrical, and that we are in more of an equivalent balance as equal partners with the three other countries which are party to it, particularly as far as the value of the fishing element is concerned.

I then turn briefly to the sanitary and phytosanitary measures, which I welcome as we seem to have reached an agreement with these three countries that enables the United Kingdom, Norway and Iceland to trade in plant and animal products which are from pest-free and disease-free areas. Paragraph 30 of the summary on the agreement says:

“The agreement allows the Parties to reflect changes that might arise as a result of any future United Kingdom-EU sanitary agreement dealing with sanitary measures on which Norway and Iceland are harmonised with the EU.”


If we are already harmonised with Norway and Iceland, surely then by definition we would automatically be harmonised with the EU, so I would welcome clarification on that point from my noble friend.

My last point echoes that put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, regarding recognition of professional qualifications. My noble friend knows that this is a subject close to my heart—in the past I had the good fortune to benefit, being able to practise European law in Brussels. Paragraph 83 of the summary states that:

“Legislation may be required to deliver the commitments on the recognition of professional qualifications made in the Agreement”,


and it goes on to refer to the Bill introduced in the House of Lords in May. I was grateful to my noble friend for the meeting we had, remotely, with himself and the Bill team in this regard and with the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. Could he specify today what the timetable of that Bill will be? That is particularly appropriate as it is set out as being pertinent to the free trade agreement before us this afternoon. I welcome this, particularly as it is the first of the future trade agreements going forward.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Baroness and to hear the very practical questions she put. I also commend the chairman of the committee that I had the pleasure of serving on, and the work of the staff who, along with those of the International Agreements Committee, do this House a great service by poring through all the details of the agreements and their accompanying documents and allowing us to have informed debates in this Chamber. In many respects, regrettably, by the nature of our process, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, outlined, these are retrospective—in many cases, we look at agreements that have already been signed and, as my noble friend Lady Ludford indicated, we look at the small print. Indeed, it is suspicious when entire documents are made of small print rather than just the footnotes, which, as the Minister knows, I am very keen on studying in detail.

I do not mean to offend or insult the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, but it is with great respect for his experience that I say that he negotiated a free trade agreement before I was born, so it is some surprise to me that the Government, in promoting this agreement, as with others, have highlighted only what they consider to be great positives. But as he clearly and forensically indicated, and as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, indicated, in many respects this is an agreement of damage limitation.

After the agreement with the European Union, this is the second agreement with major trading partners which erects new barriers and burdens, rather than reduces them, for goods and services. The Minister does not necessarily have to take my word for it, but I hope that he takes the Government’s word for it, because I accessed today from the UK-Norway page on GOV.UK the following:

“Due to the interdependencies with EU laws and systems, the services and investment provisions of the existing EEA Agreement have not been transitioned. This means the agreement does not cover trade in services and investment. The UK has put in place some unilateral measures to ensure, where possible, business continuity in services and investment trade between the UK, Iceland and Norway but you may face additional steps or trade barriers if you provide services in these countries.”


The question before us is whether, when we analyse what these new barriers are, there are ways of mitigating against them.

This would be particularly important in Scotland, where, as the noble Baroness indicated, service sector trade between the north-east of Scotland—which I know the Minister knows extremely well—and Norway is fully integrated and very deep, with both trade co-operation and competition. The lack of a services agreement is of very significant consequence. As my noble friend indicated, there is also the impact on movement of people.

When Norway and the EFTA countries required to have constant debate and discussion with the EU, the parliamentary assembly for EFTA and the EU was of great help. Can the Minister indicate what the Government expect to be the Parliament-to-Parliament relationship between us and the three countries over this agreement? This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the chair of the committee with regard to the operation of the agreement. It is particularly acute given that, for Northern Ireland, there is a significant democratic deficit in the ongoing relationship, and because these countries are part, in effect, of the single market. With goods coming to the UK which will then go to Northern Ireland for trade, operating under single market rules, what say is given to Northern Ireland representatives and Members of this Parliament in overseeing this agreement? Or do the Government simply believe that it is a Government-to-Government trade agreement?

On people, can the Minister confirm or clarify the current situation for UK nationals who had been providing services in Norway who now require to be considered resident in Norway and receive residence permits to continue their work? This is just one of the new barriers and burdens ahead of them. New permits are required for British citizens and their family members if they are operating, and they need to apply by the end of this calendar year. Can the Minister confirm that all UK nationals are in this position and that there will be no discontinuity of them providing their services in the new regime if they do not have a valid residence permit? As my noble friend indicated, this is now under mode 4, the greatly reduced 90 days in 180 in Norway and 90 days in a year in Iceland. For those operating in deep sea or offshore engineering—who have to have, almost by definition of the industrial relationships, long-term placements and long-term work—have the Government indicated that there will be any disruption to the North Sea oil and gas industry relationship and deep sea and offshore engineering?

The committee that I serve on has just taken worrying evidence from musicians and those in the cultural sector, the impact on whom we are now well aware of. When it comes to those who will be touring and working within the creative industries, the Government trumpeted in their press release just on Monday in respect of visa-free short-term touring:

“Our recent trade deal with the three EFTA countries was based on the same offer”—


as that made to the EU—

“and shows it is workable.”

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on securing this Clause 3 stand part debate. I associate myself with everything that he, my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Hunt, said.

I repeat that I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates, and I should probably state that I am an associate fellow of the British Veterinary Association.

Many believe that, while Clause 3 is useful, it is limited to international agreements—treaties to which the UK state is a party. If this is the case, when he sums up the debate, can my noble friend confirm that the power would not be available to make or amend legislation to give effect to a mutual recognition agreement negotiated autonomously at the level of professional regulators? In the view of the British Bar Council, this is a deficiency in the Bill and another reason why Clause 3 might not fit in here.

I particularly associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others, about farmers. As my noble friend will be only too aware, I have mentioned this just about every time we have debated either the Trade Act—as it now is—or individual trade agreements: there is no parity of approach between, for example, our farmers and what they might expect to get from the Australian deal, and the Australian farmers and wine producers and what they might expect. I should be delighted if the doors to Scotch whisky were to be opened in a reciprocal arrangement, but I will not hold my breath.

Where is the symmetry in the approach adopted under Clause 3? In our approach to regulations under this recognition of professional qualifications and in individual trade deals to which I have just referred, we seem to be rushing to accommodate members of those professions who wish to come here. As others, notably the Bar Council and the Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Society of Scotland have pointed out, there does not seem to be any support for our professionals who go over there. My noble friend was very clear that there was no reciprocity of agreement with the European Union. Am I being completely ignorant? Does the agreement with the EU also cover the agreement with the EEA and Switzerland? I am at a loss to understand why we are not seeking to reach an agreement on the basis of reciprocity of professional qualifications, not just with the EU but with the EEA and Switzerland.

I would like to press my noble friend the Minister further, and more specifically for a response to the amendments I tabled on day one of this Bill. I asked specifically for provision for consultation with the devolved Administrations and the individual regulators in them. My noble friend said—I am paraphrasing—“There will be many consultations”, so what form will those consultations take? What is the specific mechanism and at what stage will they take place? I do not think it is fair that the devolved Administrations should be presented with a fait accompli; they should be consulted at the earliest possible stage. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, tabled an amendment that went further, saying that the consent of the devolved Administrations should be sought. That is a moot point, to which I am sure we can return at later stages.

I conclude by saying that my greatest difficulty with Clause 3 is understanding the policy that lies behind it. Doing my homework, preparing for the Bill this afternoon, I found that, for once, the Government have produced an impact assessment. I know that will please my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, who is not here today, as we always look to the impact assessment. That is commendable. It is something to which we should refer frequently and in great depth.

In paragraph 36, on page 11, the impact assessment refers to:

“The preferred option, ‘Provide powers in the Bill to enable the government to implement the RPQ provisions of international agreements and support regulators in making agreements with their international counterparts on the recognition of professional qualifications,’ … These powers will enable the UK government to make regulations to achieve its policy aims, including the amendment of primary legislation where necessary.”


Slightly before that, on page 8, the policy objectives are set out. I will not read them all out, but one is to

“end the interim system which gives preference to EEA and Swiss professional qualifications.”

I hope my noble friend will put my mind at rest, but in the following policy objectives, I do not see anything about what the benefits to our professionals will be, whether they are pig farmers or advocates, when trying to ply their profession or establish their professional service in another jurisdiction. That is another reason it is extremely difficult to understand what the policy is behind Clause 3 and what reciprocal arrangements the Government are seeking. I hope my noble friend will set these out when he sums up this little debate.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fox for bringing this debate forward in such a cross-party manner. I was struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who has been consistent in this area. Her argument and that of my noble friend Lord Fox has been supported by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report. In paragraph 32, the committee cites the Constitution Committee, saying that both are of the view that the Government’s previous attempt at legislation in the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill,

“which allowed Ministers to implement a category of international agreements by way of statutory instrument, represented an inappropriate delegation of power.”

I agree. In that Bill, we attempted to make the Government see sense. To some extent, they did, because the powers under it, which are drafted almost exactly like those in this Bill, had an additional clause, with a sunset. The powers under that Bill for international agreements can last for only five years after their signing. Perhaps this is the point the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made: in recognition of that, if changes mean that agreements need to be updated or go beyond the scope of that Bill, new legislation should be brought forward. I would be interested to know from the Minister why the previous mechanisms for implementing a trade agreement on certain aspects include a sunset clause and this one does not.

Fundamentally, this is about trust. Because of the concerns of other committees and the debates we had on the Trade Bill, we consistently and repeatedly raised concerns about the use of Henry VIII powers especially but also about secondary legislation for implementing trade agreements or parts of them. The Minister and his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, tried to reassure us by repeating the statement that Liam Fox, when he was the Secretary of State for International Trade, gave in the House of Commons on 16 July 2018. When it came to scrutiny of trade agreements, he said that

“the Government will bring forward a bespoke piece of primary legislation when required for each new future trade agreement that requires changes to legislation and where there are no existing powers.”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/18; col. 42.]

Clause 3 and the Henry VIII powers in Clause 15 are a direct contradiction of that. This Bill seeks to use broad Henry VIII powers where regulations

“contain provision amending, repealing or revoking primary legislation”

when it comes to implementing a trade agreement. I think I can say collectively that we respect the Minister and take his word at the Dispatch Box, but why are the Government now contradicting the commitment that Dr Fox gave as Secretary of State in 2018?

I share some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about Clause 3. It provides even broader powers than those in Clause 1. Clause 3 does not limit itself to Henry VIII powers in legislation connected with regulators. It relates to any regulations under the Henry VIII power concerning individuals

“entitled to practise a regulated profession.”

These regulations are not limited to the regulators themselves. The breadth of the powers in Clause 3 is breathtaking. In the letter the Minister sent to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, he simply said that he would consider the need for impact assessment on regulatory independence when implementing an international recognition agreement. That is not good enough. This should be the default, and it should be the default that if there are requirements to revoke, amend or repeal legislation, it should be done in primary legislation.

I was grateful for the Minister’s letter and, like my noble friend Lord Fox, grateful for the letters he sent to us yesterday. I was grateful to the Minister for confirming what I said in the previous day of Committee—that CRaG would not necessarily be a default process for these agreements. Given that the implementing of what could be sub-agreements would not go through CRaG, this is of even more concern. The Minister said in his letter—and mentioned briefly at Second Reading—that if a mutual recognition agreement was not a treaty in its own right and did not amend the original treaty, there would be no need to go through the CRaG process. He said that this was the appropriate result, because Parliament would have had the opportunity to scrutinise the original treaty and the regulations made to implement the MRA.

The point is that these new aspects are potentially extremely wide and could impact massively on who is fit to practise in the UK. If Parliament would have no ability to extend scrutiny of the Henry VIII powers, even under the affirmative aspect—on which the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, said it was not the Government’s intention to bring forward consultation, when she spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—or have the same level of scrutiny on either an affirmative or a negative instrument, as it would under CRaG, this would not be sufficient.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I will primarily address Amendment 10, to which I have put my name, and then Amendment 7. In doing so, I will reflect on a couple of very good points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and other noble Lords during this short but useful debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that this debate frames the context for many of the later groups.

There is now no disagreement between the Government and the Opposition that trade agreements are now, by definition, deeper and more comprehensive than they were before we joined the European Union. The transformation of trade agreements from the mid-1970s to now has been significant. They touch on wide domestic policy, far beyond simply tariff rates or quotas for goods. Many will now include provisions on the service-sector economy, which trade agreements never touched on in the past. Therefore, seemingly innocuous technicalities in a trade agreement can sometimes have far-reaching consequences for domestic policy. Later on, the Committee will address additional chapters on climate, development and human rights that never used to exist in trade agreements. In the last group, the Minister referred to impacts on modern slavery and supply chains. These are now all within wider, deeper and more comprehensive trade agreements. It is also the case—admitted by the Government—that trade agreements in the UK in the 21st century impact on the devolution settlements that did not even exist before we joined the European Union. Therefore, there are wider consequences, and the Committee will be discussing those later.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

It will be hard, but I do not think we can let the matter go. That is why Amendment 101A should be on the Marshalled List and not consigned to room 101.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, I wish to make two brief points in this large but important grouping. The first is in response to the point made by the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Fox. When the Secretary of State spoke at Second Reading of this Bill in the other place, he indicated that the Government’s position on the anti-dumping remedies regime would be public long before we considered this Bill. We are, to some extent, debating blind in not knowing what the Government’s proposals are. That is regrettable, so if the Minister can give some clarification, that would be very helpful.

The second point is really stimulated by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley: why are the Government continuing with Schedule 4 as it is currently drafted? As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, the proposal would have been that the Secretary of State would appoint the chair of the TRA and then the chair would appoint the chief executive —that is in Schedule 4(2)(1)(a) and Schedule 4(2)(1)(c). If no chair had been appointed, the Secretary of State would appoint. In the Government’s Statement on 26 October, they announced the appointment of both the chair designate and the chief executive designate at the same time. I do not know how that interacts with this legislation, and on what basis the chief executive designate was appointed. I am not questioning those two individuals. If the intention was to have a truly independent body, the fact that the first chair had been the UK Trade & Investment representative raises some questions. I am not questioning the quality of the appointments. However, I am not sure how the fact that the announcement of both appointments was made on the same day interacts with the Bill, and on what basis both the chair and the chief executive were appointed as designate at the same time. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, either that is not consistent with the Bill, so the Government acted beyond how they said they would act, or perhaps we should just delete this aspect in its entirety for the sake of neatness.