United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 18th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, particularly in his plea that we parliamentarians should debate in depth with all who want to take part in this Chamber. This is my first opportunity to thank colleagues on the Front Bench, my noble friends Lord True and Lord Callanan, for the way they handled Committee stage. It was not an easy Committee; nevertheless, one notes that among the amendments on Report there are a number of government amendments that follow some quite long debates on issues. We should reflect as colleagues and thank them for listening and coming forward with those amendments.

Subject to rereading the debates on the final day, I also hope that it is now recognised in the House that there is nothing illegal about the Bill. Noble Lords may disagree with it and with the politics of it, but its legality is now without question.

I am sure everybody is pleased, as I am, that there appears to be total agreement that the common framework is complementary to this Bill as matters stand and that—we have listened to noble Lords from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—it appears to have worked well. That is to be cherished but, having spent five years in the chair looking at this, I note that it is pretty unusual to have a linkage across one Bill that becomes an Act and another Bill that hopes to become an Act. If there is to be such a linkage, the evidence must be absolutely conclusive, because if you go down that road you will find a clash of interests at some point. As a parliamentarian, for me that is the worst of all worlds.

At some point, arising from the dimensions of some of the contributions today, we may well need a further Bill reflecting some of the issues voiced this afternoon. However, we should not impose a new clause which appears to undermine to a degree the drive of this Bill. We need to reflect that this is a UK government Bill. It is all about the powers of the UK Government, particularly regarding the internal market but nevertheless recognising that the UK Government are responsible for external matters.

This amendment appears to me, having looked at and thought about it quite a lot, to undermine this. I am really concerned that, as it stands today, this may undermine devolution to a degree. I fully accept and understand that we may well want a full debate on a different Bill on the powers that rest with the Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish Governments and with the central UK Government, but this is not the Bill for that. I understand people’s concern about it, but this Bill focuses totally—and I believe should continue to focus totally—on making a success of leaving the EU.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I reflect from the debate so far that the leadership of the main political parties at Westminster would do themselves a favour if they studied the speech of my noble friend Lord Foulkes. I will not go over the detail, but there were sufficient warnings there from someone who has had experience of the Scottish Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords that really need to be listened to.

The first four speeches, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, were masterclasses in argument in favour of the union, going well beyond this amendment. To be honest, I must tell the Minister that this is not a modest amendment, as far as I am concerned; no way is it a modest technical adjustment of the Bill.

This Bill, as was said earlier, destroys policy divergence. It is a one-size-fits-all Bill; to that extent, it is a rejection of devolution. I well remember the examples that my noble friend Lord Foulkes gave, as will the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. Take the 1974-79 Parliament; it was always at 10 o’clock at night that we got Scottish business, on housing and education, and we were on a three-line Whip, with slender government majorities or, most of the time, no government majority. We always thought, “Why can’t Scots deal with this themselves? This is a different legal system, which most of us do not understand.” Moreover, there was never enough time for those representing Scotland, who did understand it, to debate the matters fully. Born out of that was devolution.

My experience, which I will not go into in detail, was as a Minister at the ODPM and MAFF—which had massive contacts with the devolved Administrations simply because of the devolution of food, farming and agriculture—and then at the Food Standards Agency. At the time, the Scottish Government were in effect forced to set up their own food standards agency, as they were entitled to do by the legislation. Wales and Northern Ireland may well do the same—the legislation allows them to do it—because they will be forced into the situation as a result of issues such as this Bill.

I do not quite understand this issue of complementary arrangement. I spent a bit of time while listening to everybody’s speeches going through my dictionaries, thesaurus and everything, and I still do not understand it. There seems to be no connection between the common frameworks set-up and the Bill. If that is the case, I cannot for the life of me see how there can be any complementary arrangements. The Bill overrides the other processes; there is no connection whatever to that extent. Amendment 1 puts in a connection, which is crucial.

In terms of divergence over what is required with imports, the UK Government will take no account of what happens in the common frameworks process if the Bill goes unamended. Again, it will be one size fits all. The trade department will do the trade deals and take no account whatever of any desired or agreed policy divergence between the four constituent parts of the UK.

The Prime Minister has made the position crystal clear. It does not matter how much spin he puts on it or how many weasel words come from him and his acolytes; the fact is that he said that

“devolution has been a disaster north of the border”.

That is a fundamental attack on devolution; it would not matter who was in charge north of the border. He said it was a fundamental mistake of Tony Blair, but he later tied it to the actions of the current Government in Scotland; he did not say that to start with. He was fundamentally opposed to devolution. You cannot compare the devolution of the Mayor of London with what happens in the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The union is at stake. Ministers seem to gloss over this. I think we are on our way to a federal Great Britain. I give full support to this amendment, which is fundamentally required. This is nothing personal, but I have never seen a spark of conciliation from the noble Lord, Lord True—I am sure he will take that from me as an absolute compliment—and I do not expect him to be at all conciliatory to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has said, and in due course I expect to vote for the amendment.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and his fellow signatories on these amendments. Amendment 1 neatly turns this Bill on its head, so that market access principles will not apply to any decisions to diverge that are agreed through the common frameworks process. That means that common frameworks come first, and it is only when they do not provide complete cover that the provisions of this Bill need to come into effect.

The Government have maintained throughout these debates that they remain committed to common frameworks, despite their determination to avoid even mentioning them in the Bill. They have insisted that all they want to do is fill the gap left by our leaving the EU and that they have no intention of attacking devolution. The mask slipped on Monday when the Prime Minister called devolution a “disaster” and “Tony Blair’s greatest mistake”—which makes it a greater mistake than the Iraq war. The cards are now on the table.

Covid-19: Vaccine Taskforce

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

She has declared all her relevant conflicts of interest in line with normal public sector appointments, and they have all been managed and agreed with officials in my department. She was not responsible for appointing Admiral PR; it was done under normal civil service procurement procedures by officials.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister has mentioned the task force several times. Who is on the task force? Why do we not know their names? Who appointed the task force? I have seen a reference to a vice-chair, but I understand that, when someone asked about this under freedom of information, all they got was a list of redacted sheets of paper. It is quite important to know who is on the task force to see their expertise, how they were appointed, why they were chosen and what interests they have. The Minister said more than once that Kate Bingham is unpaid; she can afford to be unpaid because, as he made quite clear, she is still working in the sector that she is currently governing. That is quite a serious issue. Is the Minister not somewhat uneasy that not a single Conservative Peer has come forward today to ask a question that supports the Government? I have never known such a case in my experience. He can answer what he chooses, or choose not to answer.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, was supportive, and he is not a Conservative Peer but an independent Cross-Bencher. The task force consists of a number of specialists in their fields from the Civil Service, the military and private sector organisations, all attempting to get the UK a vaccine that will solve the Covid problem. I would have thought the noble Lord would welcome that.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

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

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, my purpose in moving Amendment 7, which would exclude imported goods, is to emphasise, in rather stark terms perhaps, that the Bill goes considerably further than simply saying that goods made in one part of the UK must be able to be sold in any other part.

As written, it allows any good that one part chooses to import to be sold throughout the UK, with absolutely no say by the Governments or legislatures of the other three countries. So, if Northern Ireland, for any reason, permitted chlorinated chicken to be imported—although I am absolutely confident that it would not—those delightful carcases would automatically have the right to be sold elsewhere in the UK. Similarly, if Scotland accepted a very high salt content in crisps or we in Wales had too much sugar in our chocolate, or anything else like that, we would be able to import those things in any one country and they would automatically have the right to be sold elsewhere.

It could be something that we do not want for all sorts of reasons. For example, England might import something that perhaps does not damage particular producers, consumers or the environment within England but could affect farming, consumers or households elsewhere. With agriculture, we would well understand the problem with sheep farming—hill sheep farming in Wales being more affected. Certain things imported into England could have a more devastating effect somewhere else; nevertheless, once imported into one country, there would be an automatic right for a good to be sold across the kingdom.

When we were in the EU, of course, we had similar rules on what are called “goods on the market”, whereby goods guaranteed as safe, desirable or acceptable in one country could appear in the other 27 markets. However, the difference is that the EU has a system of mutual recognition of checks, standards, assurance and monitoring, as well as the safety alert system, which applies to all member states, so that each nation has confidence that, when something is imported and on the market in one country, it is equally acceptable in any of the other member countries.

It is not that we distrust any of the fellow Governments in the UK—even Mr Johnson’s—but the worry is the denial of the involvement of the other three nations in decisions on what to import by the fourth. Of course, that then impacts on what can be sold on that market, and that is the problem—the lack of that involvement. The noble Lord will understand that this is more of a probing amendment but I think that it needs justifying and some explanation of the risks in relation to imported goods.

Amendment 8, in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker, who is of course something of an expert on the subject, is more targeted and would exclude food or animal feeding stuffs from the mutual recognition principle. Obviously, I will let him make the case, rather more effectively than I ever could, for himself, but I should say to the Minister that my noble friend’s amendment is absolutely on the button with regard to consumer worries, so he will need some rather robust arguments for that amendment not to be considered on Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, at this stage of the Bill, Amendment 8, like Amendment 7, is a probing amendment, but I should just like to comment as an aside on the reference in the amendment to the definition of “food”. Most of our discussion on food safety centres on the Food Standards Act 1999 and the Food Standards Agency, but the bedrock of food safety in the country is the Food Safety Act 1990. Thirty years on, that Act, introduced by a Conservative Government, has really stood the test of time. The change made in 1999 was to separate policy for protecting consumers from the department at the time—MAFF, the producer department.

I do not want to disappoint my noble friend but I shall deal only with animal feed issues. I took the view that there will be plenty of opportunities to raise food issues—of course, I reserve the right to come back to those—but I want to deal with some animal feed issues. There is no lobby and no brief on this; I am simply using my own experience on some aspects and have made a modest internet search for some numbers. It is a multi-billion pound business, and it is crucial for human and animal safety that it is regulated effectively. There are some matters relating to animals—we are talking about food animals—which are all-island matters and which I am not at all clear about, and the Bill does not make them clear.

Animal disease control is currently an all-island matter on the island of Ireland. I say that for obvious reasons, but does that remain the case under the Bill? That is a point that really needs bringing home. If you looked at the other aspect, particularly in Schedule 1, you would think that we in the UK were isolated. We are not. Northern Ireland is on the island of Ireland, and there are some issues—I will give some other examples—where all-island matters take priority.

Animal feed is an area worth looking at because, to be honest, it is not considered to be as important as food, although of course it is. I recall that when I was at the Food Standards Agency—this was under the then chief executive, Tim Smith, who of course is currently distinguishedly chairing the agriculture trade commission and others—discussions with Thompsons in Belfast, the largest feed mill in Europe, centred on a scheme for controlling animal feed imports into the island of Ireland. This was industry-led and was to be through very few ports indeed. Today Thompsons operates an animal feed joint venture with R&H Hall in the Republic via Origin Enterprises to provide grain and non-grain ingredients to animal feed manufacturers and the flour milling industry across the island of Ireland. I want to know how that is affected by Clause 2.

To give a sense of the importance and scale of livestock, it is much more important to the economies of Northern Ireland and Ireland than it is to the rest of the UK. I will give just one example. If we compare human populations with those of the four-legged food production animals, cattle, sheep and pigs—I have excluded horses, which people can get uncertain about; we slaughter horses for feed but we export them—in the UK the ratio is approximately 0.7 of an animal per person, but in Ireland it is 2.6 animals per person and in Northern Ireland the figure may even be 2.7. So one can see that livestock is much more important to the economies of the island of Ireland than it is to the rest of the UK.

Animal genetics are just as important on an all-island basis. For example, Elite Sires has been Ireland’s leading provider of high-quality pig semen for 30 years. It is the sole provider of DanBred cutting-edge swine genetics on the island of Ireland, based of course on Denmark’s remarkable success in pig production. It delivers what it says—because I could not argue between one sample of swine semen and another—is the best swine semen in the land all over Ireland at the time when the animals are ready. How is that affected by Clause 2?

I mentioned that the safety of feed is important. The Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland are responsible for, and carry out, the function of official controls, to use the technical term, via local authorities. That is the case with most food safety issues as well. However, local authorities, particularly in England, have not in the main taken feed issues as seriously as food. The Food Standards Agency, being aware of that—I am speaking now specifically about England—has taken many steps to try to improve the situation, but the picture in its latest assessment is not a good one. I will give some short quotes from the executive summary of the latest audit for England of the way that local authorities look at animal feed, published as long ago as October 2016. Local authority service plans

“had not adequately taken into account the Agency’s National Enforcement Priorities … There had been only limited implementation of the scheme for earned recognition.”

There was “little evidence” that local authorities

“had reviewed the impact of earned recognition on the delivery of official controls”.

Local authorities were

“using an out of date version of the Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers … risk scoring system”.

Half the local authorities audited

“had incomplete feed registers and databases”,

which are absolutely fundamental to traceability. It said:

“Auditors were unable to assess the effectiveness of formal feed law enforcement actions as none had been carried out in the previous two years”.


Lastly, none of the English local authorities audited had

“any specific documented procedures for assessing the accuracy of official feed reports to the Agency”.

I have to say that if the Government want to check on this situation and there has been no significant improvement in the last few years, that function should probably be removed from English local authorities because they are not up to the job. It is fundamental to human and animal safety.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Naseby and Lord Cormack, have withdrawn. I therefore call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

I was attracted to speak to this group of amendments by Amendments 5, 11 and 53, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and, as I have listened to the debate, I have begun to wonder even more why the Bill is required in the first place. At the risk of upsetting my good and noble friend Lord Foulkes—and I certainly do not want to get involved in Scottish internal politics; that is my caveat for what I am about to say—as a Minister in MAFF, Northern Ireland and Defra, and as chair of the Food Standards Agency, I worked very closely with several Ministers in the Scottish Government, and I always found them totally professional and focused on the issue at hand at the time.

Nobody has asked me to make a speech today on this matter, but I am going to raise matters raised by Food Standards Scotland in consultation in August and in the recent letter in October. The very reason the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland exist is to ensure that policy formation, regulation and enforcement in relation to protection of consumers’ interests are clearly separated from those responsible for food industry growth and promotion. Food Standards Scotland says the Bill blurs that distinction, which has been in place since the FSA was formed after the BSE crisis in the 1990s. Both the FSA and the FSS have a legal duty to

“protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food”.

That comes from the Food Standards Act 1999 and the Food Scotland Act 2015.

Only a few weeks ago, the UK Government confirmed in their report on the common frameworks that the powers they have to restrict devolved competence under Section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop—had not been used precisely because

“significant progress is being made across policy areas to establish common frameworks in collaboration with the devolved administrations.”

No party has ever expressed the need for, or provided evidence in support of, a statutory framework to regulate the UK internal market in the way that this Bill tries to do.

It is worth pointing out that the current internal market makes provision to allow the devolved Governments to impose conditions such as labelling and composition requirements or price mechanisms on food business operators in order to meet a public health objective, provided that the proposal meets an overriding public interest test. The Bill makes no equivalent provision and, indeed, makes clear that business cost is the primary driver, with no consideration of either public health costs or non-financial consumer interests and protection. The Bill does not advance the protection of consumers, other than in cost reduction. If consumer interest is defined solely by cost, it is inevitable that it will drive down standards, because lower standards are less costly.

I will briefly deploy three examples of existing responsible policy-making that is fully in line with current UK market issues and industry pressures. They are all evidence based, taking account of industry impacts as well as consumer interests. These three examples of why the present arrangements work were all given in August to the Business Secretary, Alok Sharma, by Food Standards Scotland—to which he has never responded.

The first is the fortification of flour with folic acid to improve pregnancies affected by neural tube defects. This policy has been advocated for some time by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition and I have raised it in your Lordships’ House on several occasions since November 2013. In the absence of UK Government action, Food Standards Scotland was asked by the Government there to carry out an assessment for Scottish Ministers. It did, and concluded that the nature of the UK market was such that all flour would require fortification and differentiation in product lines was not possible. Food Standards Scotland concluded that a separate Scottish solution should not be followed. UK-wide action is currently under consideration, of course.

The second example is the prohibition of the sale of raw drinking milk in Scotland. The original wide ban has been continued in Scotland, based on illness and deaths and the advice of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. Controls in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are less restrictive than in Scotland, so different rules apply. The current system works, and Food Standards Scotland is at a complete loss to understand why the Bill appears to save the existing unique provisions; it is clear that future provisions introduced on public health grounds are not protected. In other words, what will be saved now would not be protected if further provisions were introduced. The Government are making assertions that, without legislative underpinning, unnecessary regulatory barriers could emerge between different parts of the UK. The Government have given not a shred of evidence to support this assertion.

The third example concerns allergen information for consumers on “prepacked for direct sale” foods—that is a unique type of food. Working with Defra, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland developed proposals to improve information following the tragic death of a teenager eating a baguette containing undeclared sesame seeds. Four options were considered as part of a UK-wide consultation. In short, option 4 was recommended as in the best interests of consumers, even though option 1 was the cheapest for industry. Under the Bill, if, for example, one of the bodies had opted for option 3—slightly less than option 4—the body that had chosen option 4 would have to go for option 3. Worse still, using the Competition and Markets Authority, it is likely that option 1, which was simply aimed at raising consumer confidence without regulation, would be chosen. It would be the cheapest for industry but the most unsafe for the consumer. These three examples of responsible policy-making show that the current common frameworks system should be used, and be shown to fail, before we move to the mutual recognition system outlined in Clause 2.

Finally, as was referred to earlier, diet conditions might in future require labelling of, for example, high fat and high sugar on public health grounds. This can work perfectly well under the current arrangements. Under the Bill, however, one part of the UK could be lobbied to reduce information on packaging which other parts would be required to follow. I cannot support the lowest common denominator; it is unsafe for consumers. I hope that, in due course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will press his solution.

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

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to and support the amendments in this group. The debate demonstrates that it is not just Part 5 of the Bill that has created concern. In particular, I support Amendments 5, 11 and 53 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and Amendment 170 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.

The House owes a great debt of service to the two noble and learned Lords for so clearly identifying the problems with the Bill and its complete oversight and omission of the common frameworks. In particular, they identify the problem of future common frameworks and their relationship to the Bill. But my concern is that, as there has not yet been agreement on the 18 common frameworks that may require legislative decisions, there may be some uncertainty. I note in passing that, of the 18, a large majority relate to issues being dealt with by Defra. They primarily concern agriculture, food and, to a certain extent, the environment, and that is a source of concern.

I express a concern over Schedule 1 and the impact on movements of animals and farm goods, in the event of threats to human, animal or plant health. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, referred to the default position appearing to be mutual recognition. Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 refers to the “first condition” that would form an exclusion:

“the aim of the legislation is to prevent or reduce the movement of unsafe food or feed into the part of the United Kingdom in which the legislation applies … from another part of the United Kingdom”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, set out in some detail—I entirely endorse what he said—it is all very well when the Food Standards Agency in England and Food Standards Scotland take a similar view. I put to the Minister, for his reply when summing up the debate, my view that Schedule 1 indicates the need for common standards of human, animal and plant health to ensure free movement between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I thought that was the whole purpose of the Bill.

What will happen in future if the Food Standards Agency in England and Food Standards Scotland take different views on food, animal feed or a product from either state? Will Scottish produce be blocked from entering other parts of the United Kingdom, under Schedule 1 and other parts of the Bill? That would cause me great concern.

Finally, I endorse and support Amendment 170, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. He has identified the problem that there is simply no statutory basis for common frameworks. If so, would it not be better to have a common frameworks statutory basis to deal with all the problems that have been addressed during the debate?

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

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

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s maiden speech and look forward to hearing others. In its summary of the Bill, the Constitution Committee mentioned, among others, the following words: does not justify; it is regrettable; engagement has been poor, limited and unsatisfactory; consultation is problematic; the Bill does not mention common frameworks; there is no time for adequate reflection; delegated powers are extraordinary and unprecedented; many are constitutionally unacceptable; and the Government should explain whether clause 6 seeks to constrain Parliament’s law-making power. It is, therefore, legitimate to ask about the drafting of the Bill.

When I was a Minister in the other place, 20 years ago, there was an occasion when I had to call a halt to a Standing Committee where I was in charge of a Bill. The details are unimportant, but it was only then that I discovered that policy officials do not talk to parliamentary counsel who draft the Bill. They commission the department’s lawyers, who then brief parliamentary counsel. I presume that this is to lock in the client legal privilege rules. So it is clear that government policy officials have briefed departmental lawyers to request parliamentary counsel to draft a Bill which, among other things, appears to “constrain Parliament’s law-making powers” and constrain the judicial review function so as to put ministerial regulation-making powers above the law in an unprecedented manner. Parliamentary counsel have carried out that instruction—and that I think is worrying.

The role of the House of Lords is to protect the parliamentary process. It should be a red line for this House. This Bill has the seeds of undermining the primacy of the House of Commons. I will repeat that. This Bill has the seeds of undermining the primacy of the House of Commons. Are there any limits to what can be put in legislation, or will parliamentary counsel simply use the Nuremberg defence?

As the Joint Committee on Conventions of the UK Parliament made clear in its report in October 2006, quoting the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, the Lords should be very careful about challenging the views of the,

“House of Commons on any issue of public policy.”

It is not an issue of public policy to agree legislation that neuters the parliamentary process, and neither the Government nor the Commons can claim it is. As such, this Bill, which is in no way a manifesto Bill, requires substantial amendments and deletions. Afterwards, we should hear from parliamentary counsel as to whether they operate within any boundaries with respect to defending the parliamentary process.

Trade Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

80: Clause 6, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
“(5) The TRA may publish in such a manner as it thinks fit—(a) any advice given under this section, and(b) any other information in its possession, from any source.(6) Before deciding to publish any information under subsection (5), the TRA must consider whether the public interest is outweighed by any consideration of confidentiality.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to give the TRA the same powers as the Food Standards Agency to reinforce its operational independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I shall be brief in moving this amendment. It is partly probing and partly serious, and in due course I shall probably reserve the right to come back to it on Report.

I referred to the idea for the amendment in my Second Reading speech at col. 712 of Hansard on 8 September. I accept of course that the two bodies, the Trade Remedies Authority and the Food Standards Agency, do not have the same legal status. The Food Standards Agency is a non-ministerial government department whose staff are civil servants, and indeed its board would make such a decision as implied in the amendment. It is the principle that I seek to transfer, which has worked quite successfully in the legislation for the Food Standards Agency for over 20 years, under Governments of all parties—in other words, the principle of transparency and openness when dealing with what can sometimes be confidential matters.

The power is there, as I say in my explanatory statement, to be a further guarantee to reinforce the operational independence of the authority. No one is ever going to believe that any of these bodies—set up at the behest of Ministers and perhaps fulfilled without proper due process, in the way that all bodies should be—are actually operationally independent. The one way to ensure that is to give the body such a power. I fully accept that that is very unusual—government departments, in the main, do not understand how the Food Standards Agency legislation came to provide such a power—but it was freely given by the Government and accepted by Parliament in the 1999 legislation. To the best of my knowledge, it has not actually been used, in the sense of being a sanction.

I referred at Second Reading to a stench of corruption about this Government—not as individuals, but there is a general feeling that something is not quite right about the way things are being done. Any wayward move on a trade deal—that is the polite term—could be avoided if those who wanted to be a little wayward knew that the TRA had such a power. That is where the idea of a sanction comes in: it would be established in primary legislation, even though I suspect, and sincerely hope, it would never be used. Then, we could better trust the trade deals, which is the important, central point. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. While I am in favour of transparency and of what he called the ability to sanction, I am also cautious when it comes to the disclosure of information from any source. I can see that with food, there is a public health issue that might override everything else, but I question whether the comparison is the right one when expanded more generally. Much information will be submitted to the TRA from UK and overseas companies that is commercially confidential and has been given on the understanding and indeed requirement of confidentiality—among other things, under WTO treaty obligations.

I will leave it to the Minister to reply, but it seems to me that the amendment, maybe unintentionally, goes too far and could undermine international co-operation or even leave the UK in breach of international rules. Not that I would expect the TRA to do that, but it should be clear that it is not in contemplation, so as to avoid international misunderstanding. Maybe the amendment could be worked on to include some acknowledgement of those constraints.

--- Later in debate ---

As part of its role as the UK’s investigating authority, the TRA is also able to advise and assist the Secretary of State, including in cases where trade remedy measures recommended by it are subject to an international dispute. While it is the Government’s responsibility to represent and defend the UK in such cases, the TRA may hold important information and evidence needed for the UK’s defence. On that basis, I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful for all the comments on this technical amendment, if I can put it that way. I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Kramer, that I fully accept that “from any source” in proposed subsection (5)(b) looks dramatic. Frankly, I just lifted the text straight out of the Food Standards Act 1999. That is exactly where I got the wording; in fact, there are a few more caveats built in—I think it is in Section 19—but it did not seem appropriate to have a huge probing amendment. Of course, proposed subsection (6) lays down a provision for checking on it.

The central point is that it is not for the TRA to simply publish its evidence—it “may” do. In the main it will not, but if Ministers receive advice on a wayward trade deal that they decide not to accept, the TRA should have the right to let everybody know what advice it gave. That is where the sanction comes in, in terms of being open. Nevertheless, this has been a useful debate and I will look at it again to see whether it is worth coming back to. I will be happy to receive a letter from the Minister and, obviously, I will look at it to decide whether to bring the amendment back on Report, because I do think that the issue has legs. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 80 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak primarily to Amendment 81, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, ably if very restrainedly just set out by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and to which I attached my name, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Since we have yet to hear the explanations for Amendments 83, 106, 108 and 113, I will simply say that I offer the Green group’s support to all of them to increase the transparency and representativeness of advice to the Government. I particularly note the strong cross-party support for Amendment 106 and look forward to hearing the explanations for Amendments 110 to 112.

However, I turn to Amendment 81, which is about Board of Trade appointments—or, to give it its full title, the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council appointed for the consideration of all matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations. As an aside, I think that the Government might use this legislative opportunity to bring our constitutional arrangements out of the 17th century, at least in a small way, by modernising the name.

However, Board of Trade appointments might normally be considered a rather arcane matter and something that would be of little public interest, although there would probably be a general assumption, if you were to be brave enough to survey 100 members of the public in the street, that such important roles would, of course, be filled by a fair, competitive and transparent procedure.

Then, of course, we come to Tony Abbott. Should my accent have yet to do so, I remind everyone that I maintain a residual interest in Australian politics. Your Lordships’ House has a tradition of politeness and a different kind of language to that often used in the other place. Normally, I do not find that a constraint; today, I do. Therefore, I will simply produce a factual list: there is clear evidence of misogyny, homophobia, climate change denial, a lack of trade expertise and a clear conflict of interest. The Government really could not have done a better job of highlighting the importance of the amendment. They might have intended the appointment as a blow in the culture war—it is hard to think of another explanation—but they set out their position of intending to use an important technical role for a clearly political purpose. I say very seriously to the Committee that your Lordship’s House has a major constitutional responsibility in ensuring that this amendment is sent to the other place. Defending the Nolan principles should not be necessary, but it clearly is.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will say a few brief words on Amendment 81, to which I attach my name. It would strengthen the individuals concerned when they have been through quite a rigorous public process for appointment. It would legitimise them and give them greater confidence and an assuredness in dealing with outsiders. If they have been slipped in under the net there is always that residual feeling that, from their point of view, they know that they are there illegitimately.

I speak from personal experience because I have appeared in front of a House of Commons committee. Paragraph (c) does not say that the appointment has to be approved by the House of Commons Select Committee; it just says “appeared”. There have been occasions where people have appeared and there has been a majority against, but the Government still carried on and appointed, which is within the law; they are perfectly entitled to do so.

Those House of Commons hearings are not perfect. I appeared, as an ex-Minister, as the putative chair of the Food Standards Agency. It is true to say—as the record shows—that I was asked more questions in the session about my previous role as Housing and Planning Minister, dealing with some of the constituency matters of the members, than about food standards. It was a bit frustrating, but, nevertheless, they are the ones who ask the questions, and that is what they chose to do.

However, the fact of the matter is that it gives you a greater degree of legitimacy if you have gone through a process. If there has not been one and it has been a ringing-up by chums or a tap on the shoulder, you do not seem legitimate. In the end, it shows. Therefore, I strongly advise the Government to beef up the public appointments process. There may be other ways of doing it, but the fact is that we have some tried and tested systems in this country for public appointments. We have been able to lead in some areas, and this is one where we should not be backsliding; we should use the most rigorous public appointments process that we have because it legitimises those so appointed.

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I appreciate the very great contribution he is making to our Committee’s work, as do many other colleagues. I am so glad that I can contribute briefly today after having been frozen out of our last session. I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for explaining my discomfort in having to follow the deliberations of this Committee on Tuesday but being prevented from speaking. Although my name was on amendments on the most recent Marshalled List then available, it was not on the previous list, from which the Committee was working. This may be a matter to which the appropriate people in the House may wish to give some consideration at the appropriate time.

I will speak to Amendment 106 in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I am grateful to him for including the need for the Secretary of State to include a representative of each of the devolved Administrations on the Trade Remedies Authority in a non-executive capacity. On many occasions, we have addressed the need to include the devolved Governments in all such matters, and I will not repeat the arguments for ensuring that there is harmonious working and mutual understanding between the TRA and the devolved Governments. Having their voices there will ensure that any potential issues are recognised at an early stage and will in this way eliminate avoidable misunderstandings.

Likewise, I have added my name to Amendment 109, which proposes a similar provision in relation to the TRA advisory committee. Of course, I support the inclusion of other voices, as provided for by other amendments, and I have very much sympathy with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, regarding Mr Abbott. I hope the Minister can give us some reassurance on these matters.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Hospitality Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Friday 9th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, hospitality venues, in places as different from one another as Ludlow in Shropshire and the city centre of Birmingham, have done enormous work to be made safe for the public. A restaurant is not a public house and they should be treated differently. I agree with many of the speakers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lord, Lord Mann. My noble friend on the Front Bench also made the point about resources. People need help. Businesses will disappear.

The other issue is the complete lack of active job creation activities. I know what is planned for next March, but that is no good. There is a complete lack of trust, we have mixed messages and we are bouncing along from one aspect to another without a plan, and not bouncing on the science, because we are not telling the public the real reasons for the changes.

Those are the key issues: lack of trust, lack of active job creation, mixed messages, and restaurants not being public houses. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that it is time for a reset.

Trade Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to several of these amendments, but I shall stick to dealing with Amendment 20—indeed, part of Amendment 20. If it was being redrafted, Defra should be added to the list of bodies in paragraph (a): the Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. It is not generally appreciated, but in 2010, when there was an attempt to abolish the UK-wide Food Standards Agency, the consensus in government was to remove aspects of its work to the Department of Health—nutrition and one or two other issues—and labelling and country of origin went to Defra. In fact, it was as a direct result of that action that Food Standards Scotland was set up, because the Scottish Government were perfectly satisfied with the way that the UK-wide FSA was operating. That is a minor point, but I want to concentrate on paragraph (b), which deals with the mechanism and the bodies charged with the enforcement of standards of food safety and quality, to make sure that they have the capacity to deal with the extra work.

It is worth pointing out, by the way, that although it is not politically sexy, the definition of food generally encompasses food and feed—feed being food for food production animals. That has not been taken very seriously in the past by the enforcement authorities. They are, generally speaking, local government. In the main, the Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland use local authorities for that role. Some issues they run themselves—the FSA runs the Meat Hygiene Service directly—but local authorities and environmental health officers are the unsung heroes of food safety and standards for the public.

The Government give us bad news in that respect. In the UK, local authority food hygiene interventions include hygiene inspection audits, sampling visits, verification and surveillance, advice and education and intelligence-gathering. It is absolutely crucial, but all of it will be under pressure with extra work from trade deals. Between 2010-11 and 2018-19, the total number of interventions in the UK reduced by 11%. They went down from 431,852 to 383,494. In England, the fall was from 331,000 to 305,000. In Northern Ireland, the fall was from 21,000 down to 14,000—a huge decrease. In Wales, interventions dropped from 31,000 to 25,000, and in Scotland, they went down from 47,000 to 38,000. I appreciate that with more modern risk techniques and technology, there can be reductions in certain checks, but these reductions are so substantial over that period that the position will be serious if extra pressure is put on because of the work from these trade deals.

I shall give just one local authority example to illustrate how serious the situation is in terms of people checking on our food safety. In Uxbridge in London—I just took it at random—there are 263 food business operations. Twenty-one of them, 8%, have not even been inspected. Thirty of them, 11%, have a food hygiene rating score of zero, one or two. Those are the three scores, of course, that are less than satisfactory, so nearly 20% of the food business operations in one local authority area are definitely a cause for concern. So, the issue in sub-paragraph (b), which aims to make sure that

“the Secretary of State is satisfied that … bodies charged with enforcement”

have the resources to do it, is quite serious, and is the one I want to concentrate on, because I do not want to repeat what others have said.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I remind noble Lords to switch off devices while we are in Grand Committee. It is quite disturbing and disruptive.

Trade Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st October 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lord Patel have very eloquently spoken to these amendments. They are incredibly important, and I strongly support them. We have to protect the NHS and publicly funded healthcare services across the UK from any control from outside the UK. To do otherwise would cost us dearly and would, in the end, prevent us looking after our own, because we would be told what to do from outside.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has shown, all aspects of the NHS and social care must be protected from trade agreements at every level. We need to maintain the option of reversing the privatisation which has already occurred, if that is what we decide to do in the future, and we must be free to create collaborative health and social care. Trade agreements must not drive us into some kind of locked-in increased privatisation of the NHS or, indeed, force any such change in the devolved nations. The health and social care sectors must be excluded from the scope of all future trade agreements, otherwise we will find that the NHS is irretrievably undermined.

On maintaining quality, we are world leaders in pharmaceutical research and development, yet access does not always match innovation. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has pointed out that in the first year of a new medicine being launched, only one-fifth of eligible patients in the UK get access compared to those in France and Germany. Our ability to regulate and maintain the quality and safety of medicines and medical devices must not be undermined by some small sub-paragraph in a trade agreement that slips by almost unnoticed.

In addition, medicines and medical devices must remain affordable in the UK. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society highlighted the huge extra cost to the NHS after Essential Pharma disclosed plans to cease production of Priadel, its cheapest lithium carbonate product, due to restrictions on permitted pricing. The suggested alternatives for bipolar disorder owned by the same company can cost at least 10 times as much.

So this is not only about who runs the NHS today. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, our NHS databases are extremely valuable. They are a resource for our future research and development and, from that, for our future economic development. If we lose them through a trade agreement, we will irretrievably damage our future economic development.

I now turn briefly to Amendment 75, which ensures that the Government can uphold the right of citizens to access medicines under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as part of the right to the highest attainable standard of healthcare. Modern free trade agreements are used increasingly as vehicles to further pharmaceutical industry interests ahead of public health needs. They increasingly include clauses on intellectual property, pharmaceutical regulatory processes and investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms that affect price and decrease access to medicines. To secure affordable access to medicines, the Government must be able to grant compulsory licences, deal with exhausted intellectual property rights, strengthen patentability criteria and determine what constitutes a national emergency, as laid out in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. The Covid pandemic has shown why we must always be able to make technologies available quickly, widely and at the lowest cost. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, generics are not always cheaper in a complex market that can easily be manipulated.

Our NHS database is extremely valuable, and its value is increasing. It cannot be thrown away. There are times when short-term industry profits are not good for patients and delay access to affordable medicines and health technologies. These amendments aim to secure our healthcare for the future. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that informed patient consent requires a patient to know whether data is held, what it is used for and how it can be manipulated, even when it is anonymised. They would rightly be outraged if that data is allowed to put profits in the pockets of other countries, knowing that it will never be ploughed back into the NHS—certainly not at 100%.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will intervene only briefly, initially to support my noble friend Lord Bassam in some of the examples he gave. Dispute settlement in trade deals is pretty important as is what is put into the deal. I am not clear about—but I hope I am—whether “public services” includes critical infrastructure. As far as I am concerned, the two go together. I would cite energy, for a start, because one can see the problems we are going to have with energy in this country with the collapse of the nuclear deal. We must have a mix. There is a good chance that the lights and the gas may go out and the Government may want to move at some point to take monopoly control of the service. They ought to be able to do that, but there are too many sticky fingers for my liking in the issues involved and therefore I think the idea behind the amendment by my noble friend Lord Bassam is very good.

I want to make a brief point about Amendment 51 on the health service. I thought the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, was devastating with its list of companies. Do not get me wrong, I have no objection to the NHS or other public services using the best available management tools, techniques and individuals to provide services but making use of them is not the same as handing over ownership. That is where one has to draw the line. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made a very fair point. The public do not care who is providing the service as long as it is there when they need it, free at the point of use. He went on to say that they will care when their taxes go up. That point is when someone, such as the Prime Minister, will say, “You can avoid that by buying some insurance.” It is the slippery road to push us down the insurance route. I know we are all nice people in the Lords but frankly I do not trust the Prime Minister.

[Baroness Northover (LD) [V]]

My Lords, many of the debates here take me back to 2012, and I look forward to the contribution from my former boss, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I want to speak in support of Amendment 75 in the name of my noble friend Lady Sheehan. She has laid the amendment out effectively and comprehensively. There has long been tension between those marketing and those purchasing proprietary medicines and generics. Clearly, where pharmaceutical companies invest in research and development they should be rewarded for that, but we also know how expert the industry is at claiming R&D when that is beyond what they have actually done.

This issue plays out in the NHS but also internationally, particularly in developing countries where basic medicines may not be affordable and dependence on generics is vital. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, the pandemic has shown how important this is. It reinforces that we are all interlinked. An infection that affects the community in one part of the world is within days potentially spread worldwide. It is in all our interests that disease is countered everywhere, as well as that being the right thing to do.

As my noble friend Lady Sheehan said, Amendment 75 affirms the Government’s right to use internationally agreed safeguards to protect public health, including securing access to more affordable generic medicines. As she said, earlier FTAs often focused on tariffs and trade in goods, while in the past couple of decades FTAs have become more comprehensive. Of course, many such developments are welcome in terms of ensuring standards, as we have been discussing, but provisions can also inappropriately protect monopolistic business. As I have said, genuinely innovative companies have a case, but their role can be exploited. In recognition of this, the WTO’s TRIPS agreement included public health safeguards. These were reaffirmed in the 2001 Doha declaration. Protecting genuine innovation has therefore already been addressed by the WTO, and it is important that these proposals are taken forward. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Trade Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I offer the Green group’s agreement with the legal aims of all noble Lords who have spoken so far. Amendments 1 to 5 seek to keep environmental and public health protections, and in particular workers’ rights protections. I note that there has been very strong support for Amendment 5. I offer support, too, for Amendments 100 to 102, because of the need for democratic control of this House—something that we seem to spend a lot of time talking about these days. I also agree very much with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, about how they would keep basic minimum standards here, so it is very hard to see why the Government would disagree with any of them.

However, I can perhaps offer different sentiments to some of the ones expressed in the debate thus far. The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, said that we had seen a century of rising standards. That is broadly true if you start from the beginning and go to the end, but in recent decades there have been real falls in standards, and when we look at the state of the world, whether we consider the natural environment or the climate emergency, we see that there has been a massive degradation.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that there is no point having trade that reduces our standards. I very much agree with that, but we have a real problem in that so much trade has done just that. On Friday, I was at the launch of a report by the Green House Think Tank and the Green European Foundation on trade and investment requirements for zero carbon, which set out how much damage trade has done historically. However, what we are debating are the amendments, and however much we might want to shape towards a trade world that has less trade in it but far better trade that does not build in environmental destruction and exploitation of workers, we do not want to go backwards. These modest amendments, as other noble Lords have said, seek modestly to ensure that we do not go backwards. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I agree entirely with the speech of my noble friend Lord Hain. We have moved a long way from when public contracts and the wages thereof were governed by the 1946 House of Commons fair wages resolution. We do not want to go back to those days, but we will if we are not careful.

Before making my main point, I want to reinforce the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in her question about small traders. I agree with the sentiment behind her questions to the Minister, but in relation to schools, hospitals and prisons, there is an real ongoing problem: it is not possible to create a situation where someone can bid—or feel that they have a chance of bidding—for a particular prison or school, or for a group of prisons or schools, simply because we have devolved the administration and awarding of contracts to the lowest possible level; there is no central control. Small firms will miss out unless something is put into the process that allows them to benefit. On the other hand, I do not want to leave the EU, so I do not want small firms to benefit either way; there is a better way of reorganising the EU.

The only reason I asked to speak on this group is Amendment 100. It is another example of how this Government are constantly trying to make sure that this House does not get a voice. The Bill talks about scrutiny as a resolution of either House of Parliament. That is not good enough. The amendment would correct it: it should be each House of Parliament. The contempt shown by Ministers for the parliamentary scrutiny process is abysmal and on a massive scale, and it has to be pulled back constantly. The House of Commons will try to make that provision tomorrow, and we have to do it in this Bill. I therefore offer 100% support for Amendment 100.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, listening to noble Lords who have contributed so far, it seems to me that they are losing sight of the fact that Clause 1 is really about enabling the UK to take advantage of the GPA, and they seem to be trying to make that much more difficult. Several noble Lords talked about a reduction in standards, and a race to the bottom was mentioned twice. Government policy is not to race to the bottom; it is not to diminish standards. We constantly hear that noble Lords in other parts of the House do not trust the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that we need amendments to allay his suspicions. I have to say to him that we do not legislate just to allay the suspicions of Liberal Democrat Peers; we legislate for effective legislation.

Many of the amendments are just telling the Government how and when they have to go and negotiate on certain things. If they were passed, they would be quite burdensome on the Government, who have quite a lot to do to try to get us ready for a post-EU trading world for the benefit of the UK. Nothing really happens if there is no outcome from most of the amendments, which seems to me a flaw in them.

I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said about SMEs. There is an issue about SMEs having access to public procurement opportunities in the UK, as well as the rest of the world, which is what we are talking about getting access to through the GPA. The answer is not to go and negotiate with other signatories to the GPA. The issue of SMEs not having the access that they think they could have would be better dealt with by more specific and targeted government action to remove any barriers to SMEs taking part in government procurement, wherever they are. I hope that my noble friend can say something about what can be done to enable those SMEs which wish to take part in government procurement—not all do, especially not international government procurement —to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 11, a wide-ranging amendment, and make some general comments arising from it. I am particularly concerned about the relationship between leaving the single market—going it alone—and international law, because in various permutations there are a number of aspects that impact on a whole range of things here in this country and more widely, as quite a number of speakers have already pointed out this afternoon.

In particular, I would like to know how the Government would react to an international commitment, hitherto embedded in EU law but also part of international law, which they disliked. As we know from wider political debate over recent weeks, adherence to the rule of law is important—to Parliament, to the public and to the Government. On the other hand, one of the curious consequences of exercising sovereignty in its rawest form is that you are able to overrule the rule of law, whatever you might have signed up to previously.

Clearly, international law has a different impact at home and abroad, but the old, clear line of demarcation between home and abroad, and the relationship between the role of Parliament and the exercise of the prerogative is, I believe, mere fancy, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers. Decisions taken abroad, outside the jurisdiction, may not be directly enforceable in the courts at home, but they define a Government’s standing and credibility and, if implemented, can have a far greater impact on the UK than much domestic legislation.

For all this, I believe that the Committee is fully entitled to a cogent, understandable and comprehensive description of the Government’s approach to these matters, and that it should be given from the Dispatch Box to ensure the whole story—a kind of Pepper v Hart process. How this question is answered may very well determine how my votes are cast if and when amendments to the Bill are pressed: and I dare say that the same may be true for others.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will say at the outset that I was astonished by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine. I shall not comment on it, but I thought it was astonishing—astonishingly negative, I might add. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was helpful in the sense that he correctly pointed out the obvious: namely, that the defects of Amendment 33, as he sees them, can be knocked into shape for Report. But that is the purpose of Committee, so I do not see it as a problem.

I was very proud to add my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I agree with everything he said. We have some serious issues regarding China. In the normal meaning of the word, it is clearly using slave labour, and has been for many years. The issue of predatory purchasing of products around the world is really serious.

I hope that the Minister will have picked up by now that there is a general lack of trust in the Government. This has been brought about, I have to say, by speeches from the Prime Minister and other senior Cabinet Ministers. There is a feeling that we want to cut corners and buccaneer our way round the world, as we used to do. All that means is dropping standards and, as I said at Second Reading, less transparency.

I will not go over the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He will not remember this, but the last time I followed him was in 1978, just after his maiden speech. I said a few complimentary things about it and the late Eric Heffer went absolutely berserk. A review of dependency on China is long overdue. If we are subject to 229 categories of dependency, of which 57 are critical, that is a strategic issue for the Government to look at with our partners and friends, whether inside or outside the EU.

I understand what infrastructure means. I do not have a problem with trade in infrastructure, which is different to the trade in goods. The water for the cup of tea I have just had was boiled in a kettle made in China. The shop where I purchased it had 16 models of electric kettle; every single one was made in China. I am sad to say that the trousers I am wearing—which I would not be standing up in the House of Lords in—were made in China. That is not infrastructure, but I understand what that is; it is listed in the amendment.

It is time for a disengagement. Only one country in the world is named after a family; China is actually owned by a political party. We have to take cognisance of that. It is not the Chinese people, or even the infrastructure of China. It is the co-ordinated effects of the Chinese Communist Party and we ought to be aware of that. So I wholly agree with the sentiments of and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

My message to the Minister is: there is a bit of a lack of trust in general, and the Government have to address that in this and other Bills. I too have been waiting for the telecoms Bill. Because of illness, I only got sworn in to the House in late June, so I could not participate in the debates on it, but there are some serious issues. I agree with the Government on telecoms; they are absolutely right. I agreed with Theresa May looking at Hinkley Point and I disagreed with the decision that was arrived at. These issues have to be looked at and addressed. The Minister has to take back to his colleagues that there is a general lack of trust in what the Government are saying and what they might do—hence these amendments.

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

My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I am a firm believer in the need for democratic oversight of key procurement areas in international trade agreements. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave a comprehensive rationale for the amendment and why it should be placed on the face of the Bill.

Many Members of your Lordships’ House are deeply concerned about human rights violations in China and feel that, if it is going to be involved in critical infrastructure procurement deals, the deals have to be subject to legislative rigour by way of primary legislation and, maybe, to regulation by secondary legislation. It is well worth noting the commentary from the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, earlier today.

Having done some research in support of Amendment 33, I note that there have been considerable abuses by the Chinese against the Uighurs, as has already been referred to. There has been forced sterilisation of Uighur women, organ harvesting and detention of Uighur people into classified re-education camps. In fact, earlier this year Dominic Raab said there were “gross and egregious” human rights abuses. In view of what the Foreign Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes—a former Governor of Hong Kong—have said, surely, based on their evidence and knowledge, it would be prudent to accept such an amendment in the Bill. The fact that they have also banned the Uighurs, who are Muslims, from fasting during Ramadan is a gross infringement of human rights and civil liberties. I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment and urge the Minister to give grave and positive consideration to ensuring that it is placed in the Bill.