Covid-19: Small Businesses

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of small businesses at risk of permanent closure as a result of the restrictions put in place to address the COVID-19 pandemic; and what additional support they plan to provide to such small businesses.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

Throughout the pandemic, the Government have recognised the need to support businesses through the impacts of Covid. The Government continue to deliver a comprehensive package of measures to provide that support, including loan guarantees, business grants, tax deferrals and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. We will continue to keep the approach under review and continue to engage with the business community.

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

My Lords, the ONS’s index of services shows that, despite the Government’s welcome support, all but a few sectors of the economy are significantly down on previous years. The travel, hospitality and creative industries are in deep trouble, registering between 50% and 90% cuts in activity. We have consistently called for a differential approach to sectors with a high level of freelance, seasonal and self-employed workers. Does the Minister agree that it is important to retarget government support going forward?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We keep all these matters under constant review. We are supporting self-employed people with the fourth income support grant. We are providing an extra £4.6 billion to protect UK jobs and businesses. Businesses that are self-employed, freelancers and sole traders can benefit from other measures such as mortgage holidays, VAT relief and business loans with generous repayment terms.

Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, as always, the noble Lord is correct in these matters. We have a close relationship with New Zealand on trading matters; we tend to think alike. We certainly hope to advance these matters during our negotiations.

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

My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the UK were to accede to the ACCTS, it would go a long way to demonstrating to a doubting world our commitment to honouring the level playing field clauses contained in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I endorse the noble Lord’s point. Obviously, the decision on whether to join these negotiations has some technical aspects. We very much accept the principles underlying this agreement but some of the fine print still needs to be considered and examined.

Trade Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hain for pursuing these issues of such immense importance to the lives and prosperity of the people who live on the island of Ireland. I thank all those who have contributed to this rather good debate on the issues he raised. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, reminded us, successive UK Governments of all political colours have supported the people of Ireland and the peace process.

These amendments speak to that history. The Northern Ireland protocol is now the definitive statement about how trade in goods, but not services, is to be organised going forward. However, as my noble friend Lord Hain said, it must be supported, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, reminded us, it is really complicated. Amendment 26, which we support, raises how future UK FTAs will impact trade in goods and services in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to any discrimination which might arise, directly or indirectly.

The Minister will almost certainly say that we should not worry and that all the issues raised today are covered. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, urged us to move on. However, as my noble friend Lord Hain said, future free trade agreements may well raise issues, and he is right to insist that this Bill makes the position crystal clear. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, warned us, the absence of such a clause may have a disproportionate impact on the current situation. We should heed carefully his words about fear and uncertainty ahead and do what we can to mitigate it.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that the Government should offer to bring this issue back at Third Reading, but I am not optimistic. If they do not, we will support my noble friend Lord Hain if he decides to divide the House.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lady Altmann for their amendments.

Amendment 17 strives to make the ratification of any future UK-EU trade agreement conditional on compliance with the Northern Ireland protocol. As noble Lords will be aware, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, himself has said, we have been overtaken by events—I think the word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, was “eclipsed”—and the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement has now been ratified. Noble Lords will also be aware that we remain fully committed to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol.

However, I am happy to provide further reassurances in my remarks today—I hope I will be able to do so. Our commitment is demonstrated by the agreement we have reached with the EU in the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee on the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. To reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh, this upholds unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to their most important market, eliminating any requirement for export declarations for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. It safeguards Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory, establishing the platform to preserve tariff-free trade for Northern Ireland businesses, protect internal UK trade and maintain the UK’s VAT area.

On the question raised by my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lady Neville-Rolfe on supermarkets, the Government acknowledge there are some teething issues and are working closely with the relevant stakeholders to urgently iron them out. The issues are being addressed, to give some reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for tabling Amendment 23. My noble friend and I do not usually speak on the same amendment, but there is a particular range of issues that I want to speak to on this one—issues that no other noble Lords have addressed. I am talking about controlling advertising, a fast-rising area of concern.

When I talk about advertising I also mean some of the broader online issues such as product placement and payments to influencers, which are effectively indirect forms of advertising. This is where I agree with a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, yesterday, which may surprise the House. He expressed concern about differential controls on advertising for broadcasters in the UK, which do not apply online. Yet we know that consumption of media is very much blending now; indeed, the divisions between broadcast and online material, from consumers’ point of view, are pretty artificial these days.

In some areas we already have quite tight controls in the UK for broadcasters and others—on smoking advertising, for example, as well as some controls on gambling advertising, and limited controls on alcohol advertising. We have also seen, particularly in the London underground, controls on the advertising of unhealthy food. As we start to face up to our role as chair of COP26, and face the climate emergency and the nature crisis, a broader concern about advertising is rising, in relation to its place in driving consumption, and driving the destruction of our planet.

The amendment is about children in particular. It is Green Party policy that all advertising directed at primary school age pupils, who psychologists tell us cannot distinguish between advertising and programmes, or editorial content, should be banned. In the online context, it should be possible to create a situation in which we can protect children up to a certain age from online advertising.

I note that just before Christmas, on a question about gambling advertising, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, speaking for the Government, said:

“We very much welcome moves by the major platforms that give individuals greater control”.—[Official Report, 14/12/20; col. 1518.]


over gambling advertising. Should a future Government decide to enforce even the rights of users to block advertising, I suggest that we do not want to see trade Bills stopping that happening.

I conclude by referring to what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said. What we are talking about here is giving guidance and democratic control—sovereign control—to our trade negotiators in future trade deals.

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

My Lords, I thank all speakers for their contributions to this rather important debate. I was happy to sign up to Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, because surely ensuring online safety for children and otherwise vulnerable people is one of the key issues of our time. Secondly, while the age-appropriate design amendments your Lordships’ House made to the Data Protection Act 2018 have made a start in ensuring that the UK is a safe place for children to be online, much still hangs on the progress of the as yet unpublished online harms Bill. Sadly, there is still rather a long way to go before that become law. If, and when, the online harms Bill, assuming it retains its present ambitions, becomes law, it may provide a bulwark against any tendency the Government may have in future to trade away current or future protections for our children and other vulnerable users. But we are not there yet.

The points made by my noble friends Lord Knight and Lord McNally about the way in which the US tech giant lobby has been forcing changes on recent trade deals are, frankly, chilling. This is not the time to weaken current protections for children online. We must ensure that future trade deals protect our current, and prospective, domestic legislation, and we can do that by taking this issue off the negotiating table.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Sheikh, would preclude the Government from signing an international trade agreement that is not compliant with existing domestic and international obligations relating to the protection of children on the internet, including under the Data Protection Act.

I thank noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for meeting me and discussing this in more depth. Nobody can doubt the passion and resolve she brings to this issue, and I can assure her that the Government share her concerns, and those of other noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully in the debate. I personally fully share those concerns.

That is why I am pleased to confirm that our trade agreements are already fully compliant with existing domestic and international policies protecting children on the internet. We are already committed to making the UK the safest place in the world to be online. We carefully consider any interaction between trade policy and impacts on user protection in trade agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

24: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Consent of devolved authorities
(1) No international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom so far as it contains provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1), unless the Scottish Ministers consent. (2) No international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom so far as it contains provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1), unless the Welsh Ministers consent.(3) No international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom so far as it contains provision which would be within the devolved competence of a Northern Ireland department (within the meaning given in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1), unless a Northern Ireland devolved authority (within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1) consents.(4) No international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom unless a Minister of the Crown has consulted and sought the consent of devolved authorities on the implementation of international trade agreements.(5) An international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom without the consent of devolved authorities sought under subsection (4) only if—(a) the period of one month beginning with the day on which consent was first sought has elapsed, and(b) a Minister of the Crown has made a statement to each House of Parliament explaining why consent has not been obtained.”

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

My Lords, Amendment 24 is in my name. Although devolution is a settled fact in our constitutional arrangements, it is odd how often we find that legislation brought before Parliament either ignores it completely or makes token gestures in that direction. The recent experience of those involved in this Bill and the then United Kingdom Internal Market Bill has made this abundantly clear.

The proposed new clause is offered to the Government as a template that I hope they might find of interest as they consider matters relating to the devolved settlements. Building on successful amendments that were made to the then United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which were accepted by the Government, they propose a two-stage approach: where devolved competences are engaged, there is a separate process, and, where they are not, committing to consult and seek consent from the devolved Administrations should be combined with setting a one-month time limit for the consent process. This proved successful in what became the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, and, as far as we are aware, it is acceptable to the devolved Administrations. I hope it will be of interest to the Minister when he comes to respond, and I thank others who have decided to support this amendment in this debate. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and to back his amendment. As the noble Lord said, this is territory that we have covered over and over again, so I will not take a great deal of time. The sections of this amendment say that the devolved Scottish Government should not be overruled on matters within their purview; that the Welsh Ministers should not be overruled on matters devolved to them; and that the Northern Ireland Government should not be overruled on matters devolved to them.

We have here something of a reflection of what happened on 30 December, when many noble Lords participated, in one way or another, and in one day both Houses passed a Bill to which we had no consent from the devolved Administrations—indeed, there was opposition from two of them. This amendment aims to create, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said, a blueprint for the way forward. It is a balanced amendment. Clause 5 says that if the Westminster Government seeks to overrule the devolved Administrations, that has to be explained to both Houses of Parliament.

We hear an enormous amount about sovereignty and taking back control. This Bill seeks to ensure that the nations of the UK are in control of their own destiny in the areas where they have been given powers. I very much hope that your Lordships’ House will back this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, while I absolutely share the noble Lord’s belief that the UK Government should be working closely with the devolved Administrations on our trade policy, I do not think that this amendment is the appropriate way to achieve this, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to withdraw it.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I always listen very carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and again I thought that he spoke with great sense about some of the issues here. However, I was left a little puzzled by where he ended up in his contribution. If the best possible deal in a future trade negotiation means that we have to change the devolution settlement, where will that judgment be taken? At the moment, the issue we have is that there is no sufficient structure or support for the interrelationship between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to resolve the difficulties and tensions that will occur most on these issues.

This is a little unfair, because the Minister perhaps needed more notice, but, when he responded to the questions about Welsh lamb from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, he did not get down to the details. Perhaps he would write to them with a more considered position, because of exactly the point they made: where is a decision that affects the narrow interests—as some might call them—of Welsh upland farmers going to be taken, in relation to a trade deal that has been made by the UK Government as a reserved matter? This is of real importance to those affected by it in the devolved Administrations.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, suggested that Ministers need to wake up and smell the coffee, and that there is a need to reset this relationship, which I have already covered. He made the very good point that, just because a matter is reserved, it does not mean that good would not flow from a debate and a discussion, and the emergence of common positions around the devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom.

That is where we were trying to get to with this amendment: it is clear that, while the Government are going through their paces and beginning to get the hang of how negotiations need to happen, they do not yet have the mood, spirit and body language—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—in their day-to-day workings. That shows, I am afraid. If you want an example of that, the Minister ended on the changes that have been made between the Bill’s first emergence in 2017 and today, but of course they include a number of amendments to try to paper over the arrangements that previously existed for trade, as it affects the devolved Administrations. That makes my point.

However, this is not the time to force change. This needs more debate and discussion, important use of the existing channels, and some reform of those channels. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

36A: Clause 7, page 5, line 9, leave out subsection (4)

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

My Lords, the meat of this short group of amendments is in government Amendments 37 to 42, as listed, which cover the main issues we need to debate.

I am sure that the Minister, when he comes to respond, will not be upset with me if I say that I expect him to say that he would not expect, when considering amendments, ever to be in a situation where people were legislating for a second time on an issue that had already been decided in a different Bill. However, a bit like Groundhog Day, that is what we are doing today, because this part of the Bill has already been put into law and exists as the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act. I am very grateful to the Minister for his letter of 4 January, which answered a number of points that were raised during the very truncated session we had on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill in order that one section of this Bill could be in place from 1 January—although it is intended to be sunsetted as soon as the Trade Bill has received Royal Assent.

Amendment 36A is very limited and I do not expect a very full response to it, because it is not germane to the main issue before us, which is to try to make sure that the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act, as it now is, contains the same wording, effectively, as will be in the Trade Bill when it receives Royal Assent. We should not impede that, because it is important that we get it right and that the sunset clause takes place.

However, during the debate on the then Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill, I asked why Clause 7 of the current Bill was not included in the sections relating to disclosure of information which follow Clause 7, particularly those from Clause 8 to Clause 10 in the current Bill. The answer I received was that they dealt with different issues, even though they were also about the disclosure of information required and, indeed, are covered by amendments that follow. The purpose, therefore, of having this amendment at this stage of this Bill is simply to get on the record for response that the Minister made the first time around, in order that we have both parts of the legislation which will end up being in the Trade Bill in sequence and saying the same thing. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have addressed any remaining concerns held by noble Lords relating to the clauses being debated. On that basis, I will move government Amendments 37 to 40 and Amendment 42 when the time comes.

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have spoken in this short debate. I started by suggesting that it was Groundhog Day, but we ended up in Alice in Wonderland. We may need to think about another film, play or book to get us through to Third Reading if we are to have even more amendments to this much-amended part of the Bill—and, indeed, two Bills.

I owe the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, an apology for not making it clear what I was at when I tabled Amendment 36A, but I congratulate her on picking up the reason why I picked that particular reference in subsection (4). On the surface it seemed an extraordinary power to take. She might feel, like I do, that the way the Minister responded did not assuage the concern that the Bill takes power to modify an Act of Parliament when all we were told about was making sure that a particular box was ticked in a tax return, for which a statutory instrument would be required. These things did not seem to square up, but given that we will come back at Third Reading I am sure she or I will take this further should we wish to.

The only other person who came out of this discussion badly was my noble friend Lord Grantchester, who I think was inadvertently blamed for making the Minister come back with the amendments on Report that he thought he had put through in Committee. It was a long time ago—indeed, it feels like even longer. We actually started Committee on this Bill a second time around—I mean the Trade Bill, not the other Bill—in a Committee Room. I know that it is a convention that amendments made then do not necessarily go into the Bill at that stage, so I thought it was appropriate for this to be brought back on Report. I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Grantchester was in any way to blame, although he might have given expression to the way it happened.

We have more than covered the ground that the amendment would open up. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, with all his forensic skills, must be satisfied that he has most of the answers he wanted. I certainly have, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 36A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am less squeamish that the noble Baroness about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I am grateful to him for bringing it forward. As our discussion about the Trade Remedies Authority demonstrated, the framework for how the UK, now outside the European Union, will approach trade remedies on disputes where we believe that another country is acting beyond WTO standards and principles, is much more to do with public debate and full, wide parliamentary scrutiny than whether the parent legislation involved financial privilege. Our debates about the Trade Remedies Authority lead naturally to asking what is going to provide a framework of accountability for any decisions taken as a result of its recommendations.

I have only one issue to raise with the Minister. I was not satisfied with the response in Committee to a matter I raised. One of the justifications for not supporting the amendment was that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, the Minister said that there is sensitivity to some of these aspects. Of course there is sensitivity: that is true by definition. In any trade dispute, there will be sensitive aspects; I do not think that is denied. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely right: we were discussing a previous version of this Bill on Report when the WTO authorised the United States to impose $7.5 billion-worth of tariffs on the EU. The WTO subsequently authorised the EU to impose countermeasures of $4 billion and, as the noble Lord said, from the United States’ point of view, the question whether to make a recalculation for the EU 27 is now being reviewed.

The most important element, to my mind, is that the WTO authorised it. I do not think anybody on any side of this House is proposing that the UK should act illegally in a trade dispute in which we are then seeking to be on the right side, inasmuch as we would not use WTO procedures. The WTO procedures are quite clear: you cannot put forward countermeasures which will include tariffs unless they have gone through the due process in the WTO.

Therefore, the notification of the WTO, with the tariff measures as part of the countermeasures, will be in the public domain. It will be debated. It is therefore nonsense to think that there will be scrutiny, transparency and a public debate regarding our measures to the WTO, but not in Parliament. Many sectors will be involved, as we saw with the US measures. I do not need to go into the detail, but be it whisky, textiles or the metal industry, these measures and potential countermeasures have an impact domestically on certain sectors, regions and nations of the UK. Therefore, it is right that, if we are to make a measured and targeted response to a third country that we believe has acted against its obligations, we ensure that we are not acting in self-defeating self-interest, and a degree of accountability is thus required.

I simply cannot understand why the Government believe that measures that have been made public cannot then be approved by Parliament. I continuously support the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in this regard.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised a very interesting question. We need to think a bit harder about it than we did when we first looked at this in Committee.

The issue is not so much with the powers split between the Commons and Lords in relation to financial matters, which I think was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It is more to do with—as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was trying to get us on to—the reality of the grounds on which we have to consider more widely and the relationship between a pure measure, such as tariffs, and the way in which it might be used in any trade dispute, or any day-to-day consideration of our trading relationships. Out of that comes a consideration about whether this is an executive issue or there are also parliamentary concerns.

Taking it from the other end, the fact that the powers enshrined in the original legislation are for a negative instrument suggests that the Government have taken the view that this needs the very lowest level of parliamentary scrutiny. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out very well, this cannot be right. These areas often deal with very important and quite meaty issues to do with industrial policy, employment and the whole economy. There seems to be a distortion being built up between the particular issue in hand, the remedies available and the role of Parliament in considering it.

Surely it would be wrong if we ended up in a situation where the only parliamentary process was consideration of a negative statutory instrument when, in truth, the effects it was trying to ameliorate were causing concern on quite a large scale in the country. I do not have a solution to this. I do not think this Bill is going to provide us with an outlet. I wonder whether the Minister might consider taking this away. Perhaps a more considered review is needed in a couple of years’ time, when we have had experience of how it works in practice.

Without wishing to put words in his mouth or ask him to commit to something he cannot commit to, can he give an assurance that this is something the Government will keep a close eye on? Should issues arise during the next year or so, an appropriate way forward would be to take this as an issue and see whether, as a result of the scale of the penalties, the style of the approach being taken through Parliament and the impact this is having on the economy more widely, it might be best dealt with through a review process.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I turn to Amendment 41 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, which seeks to ensure that regulations made under Section 15 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 will be made under the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I remind noble Lords that that section allows the Secretary of State to vary the rate of import duty—that is, increase or decrease tariffs—in the context of an international trade dispute.

First, I begin by thanking my noble friend for his commitment to this issue, alongside the correspondence and meetings that we have had on the matter. I hope my noble friend found them at least partly as useful as I did.

Noble Lords may recall that I explained in Committee why I believe that it is imperative that HMG are able to enforce, swiftly and confidently, the UK’s rights under international trade agreements. I explained to the House that the conduct of state-to-state trade disputes is a matter of foreign diplomacy and is covered by the royal prerogative. I also reminded the House that international litigation, including launching and defending international trade disputes, can be extremely sensitive, with far-reaching geopolitical implications. I shall not attempt to justify sensitivity in itself, of course, as a reason for avoiding scrutiny. However, when that sensitivity may give rise to matters that are extremely prejudicial to the UK’s position, it must be absolutely right to take it into account.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Suspension of Liability for Wrongful Trading and Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction of the statutory instrument and the other speakers for the points that they have made. I declare my interest as a retired fellow of the ACCA.

During the discussions on the Bill, this was probably the most contested part of the mixture of temporary and permanent changes that were made. It is interesting that that remains the position. The other changes seem to have settled reasonably well, though perhaps it is that we are relatively close to those changes and do not have all the information or evidence for them yet.

The issues that were most in people’s minds during the debates on the Bill were the signals that might have been sent out to those who might perhaps be considering breaking the law in relation to personal liability issues, by knowingly trading when they were likely to be insolvent. It is difficult to judge that in relation to the coronavirus, but time has obviously moved on and perhaps we now have a better understanding of the impact of this on our economy and the way in which we need to respond.

It is interesting that the department, despite being pressed in this House on the point, decided not to renew the original period of time under which this provision was brought in. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, just mentioned, there is therefore a lacuna from 30 September to 26 November in which these powers did not exist. Presumably there will be court actions and evidence that we will be able to pick up later in the year about how this happened and from which we can learn. It is surprising that we do not seem to have any evidence about how many companies are involved. We do not really know—and will not for some time—what the impact will be. There is no impact assessment. As the Explanatory Memorandum says very clearly, this is indeed a judgment call. What has changed between the decision presumably taken not to renew this in September 2020 and the decision now to extend it, even though there will be a gap? Can the Minister help us on that?

The point raised in the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is very interesting. The Minister answered this to some extent, but basically reasserted the department’s view as reported to the committee. Would he agree that this raises more of a question about how proceedings should be taken in the future on the question of where the evidence and balance of proof need to lie for the courts to make a decision that a director—or directors—has behaved against the law? There are obviously two options here, and it would be interesting to get a response, even if it is only that this is something that will need more work.

The broader point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, is important here. There are, increasingly, issues that need to be picked up around insolvency, corporate behaviour in relation to it and the way society judges it. This is a point we have made before, and it is still being broken down. Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum lays out all the various ways in which creditors have retained protection when wrongful trading is proven. But it is a very complicated world: misfeasance, fraudulent trading, disqualification proceedings and compensation orders are all very different and rather expensive ways of trying to take forward any issue that one might have in relation to liquidation and the conditions under which personal liability might arise. I would be interested to know from the Minister whether the department will be looking at this in due course. A number of issues relating to company law will need to be addressed over the next few years; this might well be another point to take forward.

Finally, on the question of AGMs and the different arrangements to apply, these are sensible proposals; it is good that regulations are being extended. But it raises the question we raised last time of why some of these are not made permanent. Special considerations apply to charitable companies and SMEs, but relaxing the rules that require physical meetings seems appropriate for the long term, now we are all more used to working virtually.

Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th December 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his clear and concise introduction to the Bill before us today, and to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Purvis, for blending seamlessly from Second Reading mode to Committee mode, which has allowed us to get into some of the detail that we perhaps would not have had if this had been a traditional Second Reading.

I am afraid that, rather like them, I have detailed questions to ask but, like others, we are not against what the Government are trying to do here. We will support them in getting the Bill on to the statute book because it clearly is appropriate and in our best interests that we have the right legislative framework under which data is exchanged. That presumably must lie at the heart of what is being done today.

My first point has not been raised by the other two speakers but was implied in much of what they said. The Bill takes Clauses 8 to 10 of the Trade Bill currently in your Lordships’ House, but does not include Clause 7. This is a bit odd. Can the Minister reflect on that when he responds? Clause 7 is about the collection of exporter information by HMRC. Presumably the current Bill being only about the disclosure of information held means that powers already exist under which data is being collected, and that these powers do not need to go into the new Bill because they will continue, as it were, subterraneously as the new Bill comes into effect from 1 January 2021, and until it is sunsetted, but is that right? The question left hanging in the air is: if the clause that we will be considering under the Trade Bill on 6 January needs our consideration on 6 January, why is it not needed on 1 January? If it is not needed, precisely which powers are being used to collect the information that will subsequently be dealt with under Clauses 8 to 10? I hope I have said enough to explain that issue, and I look forward to the response.

We may indeed have amendments to Clause 7 when we get to it in due course, and of course that would be an opportunity for us to explore this matter a bit more. But it would be interesting to have confirmation from the Minister that we have the powers and that we do not need to worry about which leg of the statute book we are relying on for this.

Secondly, as others have mentioned, the amendments made in the short Bill before us have been based on amendments discussed in Committee and are on the Marshalled List for consideration on 6 January. However, I notice that the versions currently on the Marshalled List are the original amendments; they are not the ones in this short Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right to raise this as an issue. The drafting has changed. It might just be that a different draftsperson is holding the pen but it is, to some extent, significant. This afternoon we are dealing with a Bill with one set of amendments to the wording which will then be presented to your Lordships’ House for consideration on Report and which might, if the amendments currently laid are the ones that we are discussing, differ. Does that matter? I do not think that it does particularly but, again, it would be interesting to have a clear statement from the Dispatch Box about whether the amendments currently laid are the ones that we will be considering on 6 January. If they are not, can the Minister confirm that he will be changing them in short order?

Thirdly, I very much welcome the amendment that deals with the devolved Administrations. There was clearly a lacuna in the original drafting. They have powers in relation to trade that are not reserved and they will therefore want to access the information that has been gathered and make use of it in an appropriate way. It is important that they are consulted on more issues relating to this Bill. The Minister will be aware that we are likely to come back to this again on Report in the light of the discussions that we have been having on the internal market Bill. Out of that has emerged a framework of drafting which is helpful in relation to how we wish to see the UK Government deal with the devolved Administrations—that is, not just to consult them but to seek their consent. Will the Minister take that back and look at it again to see whether the drafting can be amended slightly to incorporate this new version?

There has always been a concern that the UK Government having to consult the devolved Administrations was one thing but, where they also had to seek consent, there was a danger that there might be game-playing or a wish in one of the devolved areas to hold things up, effectively giving a veto to the devolved Administrations. The way round that in the internal Market Bill is quite clever. Where it is important that the decision is not delayed, the Bill includes a phrase about the seeking of consent being time-limited to a month and, if for any reason the consent has not been received within a month, the Minister has the power to carry on with the regulatory framework. I recommend that to the Minister and would be grateful if he would have a look at it.

My final point is on the sunset clause. This might just be the drafting but it is rather awkwardly framed in the short Bill before us. The Secretary of State appears to have quite extensive powers to mark his own homework and make decisions, but the Bill which will emerge from your Lordships’ House and from Parliament and which will receive Royal Assent as the Trade Bill will, we think and hope, have significant changes relative to the draft received in your Lordships’ House some time ago. Would these changes be sufficient to suggest to a Secretary of State that the Bill was not sufficiently similar for this short Bill to be required to stay in force? If so, can the Minister give an assurance from the Dispatch Box that, if this is a phrasing issue, it is not a principal issue, and that the principle he wishes to see in play is that this Bill is definitely sunsetted; that there is no threat to the Trade Bill as it progresses through Parliament, however different it might look at the end of the process compared with how it is at the moment; and that we are not just trading clever words here but that this is a genuine attempt to make sure that we do not have the statute book cluttered with different forms of the same piece of legislation? That would obviously be inappropriate.

I hope the Minister will understand that I in no sense wish to be too negative but we would not wish to see a situation where, for reasons that are as yet unclear, the Government might fall out of love again with their Trade Bill and decide that they did not want to see it on the statute book. We would then be left with a rushed-through piece of legislation—which would probably be okay—dealing with this aspect. That might well have significant consequences that we cannot foresee at this stage, and that would be unsatisfactory.

I think that I have dealt with all the main issues that we wanted to raise. We have effectively covered the Bill both with a Second Reading and a short Committee stage, in substance if not in name. I think that the right thing for the Government to do is to take this legislation through its remaining stages as quickly as they can, so that we see it on the statute book. However, there are points that we will come back to and we look forward to having detailed discussions on those.

Covid-19: Impact of No-deal Brexit on Vaccine Supplies

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I said in my previous answer, the use of the military is very much a last resort. I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that I cannot share details of security arrangements, but I can assure her that we have worked very closely with vaccine suppliers and others to ensure that shipments are properly protected and looked after.

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

My Lords, will the Minister tell us a bit more about the contingency plans? Apparently, there is a Government-procured ferry on standby. We did not have much luck last time. Can he confirm that it is properly equipped to deal with the extreme refrigeration needed? Is there a backup to this contingency plan?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. I can assure him that there are a number of backup plans. We have worked very closely with the suppliers and we are confident that the cold supply chain will not cause any problems. Obviously, everybody is aware that this vaccine has to be transported at a temperature of minus 70 degrees, plus or minus 10 degrees centigrade, and the manufacturers have put in place proper supply units that are maintained at that cold temperature and can also be used for temporary storage.

Trade Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con) [V]]

My Lords, unlike my noble friend, I can support this amendment. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said that sharing sovereignty is not the same as sacrificing it. I feel deeply frustrated this afternoon for all manner of reasons. It is the first time since July that I have taken part in a debate without being in the Chamber; the frustrations of this afternoon, which have meant that I have to speak to your Lordships over the telephone, fill me with admiration for those who make that possible— we are all very much in their debt—but underline the unsatisfactory nature of our current Parliament. The sooner we can all be in the Chamber, the better. I certainly intend, God willing, to be back in the Chamber immediately we return from the Christmas recess, although we do not know when that will be.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, talked about the importance of movement. Several members of my family, including both my sons, are in service industries of one sort or another. Movement between the UK and the EU is essential to our prosperity as a nation. It beggars belief that the Government should be jeopardising that prosperity when we are in the deepest recession in 300 years. I cannot for the life of me understand why, when Covid struck, we did not press the pause button on our negotiations with our friends and allies—and they are both. Every nation in Europe is convulsed by Covid. It is the priority on every national leader’s agenda. For us to be coming down to the wire merely because of the mystical significance of 31 December is incomprehensible. Deadline politics is very rarely sensible or wise politics.

Those whose mobility is being frustrated are the very people on whom we will depend for our future: the innovative, the creative, those in the financial services and many others. The prospect of our leaving on 31 December without a deal—the Prime Minister tells us that is the most likely prospect—is a very harsh one. It makes me ashamed of my party and ashamed for my country. I just hope that, in this season of good will, some common sense and charity will prevail and a deal will be struck before or after 31 December, so that we can maintain proper convivial relations with our friends and allies in the European Union.

Of course we are out of the EU. I may regret that, but I do not think it practical that we can go back in, certainly not for very many years. We must make this work. We will make it work not by posturing but with true conviviality and a recognition that compromise is essential for progress in almost all walks of life. I am sorry not to be with noble Lords this afternoon. I cannot get back soon enough.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who often dominates our proceedings from his position on the Conservative Benches—even when he is not physically present, he still has a lot to contribute. He put his finger on a number of important points in this short debate on the mobility sector.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as she is often wont to do, accused everyone who spoke in support of this amendment of trying to relive the Brexit debate. I hope that, when she reads the debate properly in Hansard and reflects on what has been said in response to her already, she will realise that that is way off course. My noble friend Lord Foulkes put it in his traditional bullish way, but he had a point. We are looking to a future that is not the same as the past, but a future with a significant disjuncture—the leaving of the EU—and this is here so that we can think again about how our future economic prosperity can be lodged in the things that make Britain a very successful economy, when we get it all right.

In introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made a number of key points in support of his argument. The best was about how this suggestion for mobility must sit in the context of our services industries, which he and others pointed out are the majority part of our economy. He also said—it is very important to bear this in mind—that most trade in physical goods these days has a services component. We have heard examples in recent debates about Rolls-Royce; although it supplies bits of parts and elements for aircraft and other machinery, it mainly makes its money from the service contracts accompanying them. The key to delivering that is flexibility so that, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, put it, people are happy with the product they buy. There are cultural and social benefits as well.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, made very powerful arguments in support of our creative economy. I liked the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull—the “human-gathering industries”. It is the first time I have heard that, but it may be more common in other debates and discussions. Our ability to create economic activity around the interaction of people clearly depends on people being able to move around and join together. Hospitality and other service industries rely on that, and it is very important that we get that right; it is what we do best in this country. We make most of the money that keeps our services going through that, and we must make sure that we have the right circumstances for it.

The narrow point about the cultural industries was, of course, made strongly by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. He has a long and distinguished record of saying important things about the creative industries in your Lordships’ House, and we should listen to him. It is a key sector of our economy and, of course, it depends on people travelling to perform or create in a way that is not true of many other traditional industries, but that is no reason to discriminate against it—indeed, we should do the opposite.

The old system we used to operate under, successfully, for many years has gone. We have to think about the new one, and we should not erect barriers to that. I am sure that the Minister will deal in detail with the points made when he responds, but will he answer a particular question that I have? It is noticeable that the free trade agreements being negotiated by his department, such as the recently signed Japanese agreement, often have a mobility component. Can he confirm that that is likely to be a feature of many of the free trade agreements going forward and, if so, in what way will that assist the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and those who have supported him in this debate?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I start by giving my sincere thanks on behalf of the House to the technical staff for—how should I put it?—rebooting the House successfully. We remain indebted to them for their essential, continuing support.

Turning to Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, as I outlined in Committee, the Government have made it clear that our priority is to ensure that we restore our economic and political independence on 1 January 2021, as my noble friend Lady Noakes iterated. The rather depressing “new normal” that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, outlined plays no part in our vision. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—I think I have pronounced his name correctly—that we do need to move away from talking about Brexiteers and remainers. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said himself, we should look forward, because we want a relationship with the EU which is based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals and centred on free trade.

We know that it is important for businesses to be able to send their employees to deliver services on a temporary basis. This was reflected in the debate in Committee, where several noble Lords noted the importance of these arrangements for service industries, which are a crucial part of the UK economy, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, emphasised. I would like to pick up on his remarks, as well as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. They are both absolutely right: there is a lot of talk, correctly, about the creative industries and, in particular, the importance of orchestras going on tour. This includes EU orchestras coming to the UK and touring here, and, equally, UK orchestras touring around the EU. It is very important indeed that that should continue, as well as in respect of touring companies. As I said in Committee, we are open to negotiating on the EU reciprocal arrangements that would and should allow this to happen, building on the provisions that are standard in trade agreements. By the way, this should include allowing lawyers practising both in the UK and the EU to have reciprocal arrangements, an issue raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh.

A reciprocal agreement based on best precedent will mean that, on a short-term basis, UK citizens will be able to undertake some business activities in the EU without a work permit. This would also apply to EU citizens making business visits to the UK. Task Force Europe, led by Lord Frost, is negotiating the precise details, including the range of activities, the documentation needed and the time limit. I was interested in the good example given by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, of German technicians needing to come to the UK, often urgently, to undertake work over here. I suspect that this may come from his experience in the aerospace industry. As he will know, the commitments on mode 4, which sets out the terms under which businesspersons can move between trading partners, are a feature of every free trade agreement that covers services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the arguments in support of these amendments, but I do not believe that it is in our interests to seek unduly to restrict the list of countries with which we may choose to enter into trade agreements. The more that we interact with and trade with less developed countries—those least able to comply with the climate obligations that we have undertaken—the more we will assist them to raise their populations out of poverty and become prosperous. It is only by becoming prosperous that they will be free to accord the same importance to emission reductions as we are able to do. Furthermore, how on earth can a Minister of the Crown make a statement to Parliament confirming that any agreement will not give rise to a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions? The expectations of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and the co-signatories to the amendment are surely unrealistic.

Amendment 14 would be counterproductive and could limit the volume of trade with many developing countries, which would negatively impact their ability to introduce climate policies similar to our own. Amendment 21 is unnecessary and possibly counter- productive. We have rolled over continuity agreements with 59 countries, and none has eroded our domestic standards on the environment, food safety or animal welfare. I have not heard any noble Lord cite an example of a domestic standard that has been undermined or an international agreement not adhered to. In the case of food safety standards, it is for the Food Standards Agency to ensure that all food imports comply with the UK’s high food safety standards and consumers are protected from unsafe food. Decisions on those standards are a matter for the UK and are made separately from any trade agreements. We are a world leader in environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety. Could my noble friend confirm that the Government are committed to maintaining those positions and that he agrees that these amendments are unnecessary and inappropriate?

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

My Lords, this has been a very good debate, and we have ranged far and wide across the issues raised originally by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and picked up later by the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett, with their amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, makes good points about future trade agreements needing to tie us to the net-zero carbon and other environmental standards that we have and points out the need for consistency of government policy across all the areas involved, not least trade, to achieve that. We need to think very carefully about how our new trading agreements, which the Government are very keen to see signed, and which we support, will use the climate change focus as they move forward.

When the Minister responds, he will undoubtedly say that we have very high standards and will never negotiate them away, but he must admit that the Agriculture Act 2020 has a non-regression clause covering environmental issues. So we look to him to reassure us that our standards are high and will not be diminished, but also to say why he is not prepared to see these broader issues, such as the environment and others, included in the Bill, because that seems to be how the Government are thinking with this policy.

Other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have argued that we should do more than simply respect our own standards in the trade agreements and deals that we want to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, was very strong on the need to live up to our role as a leading advocate of decarbonisation and to lead the way for others. Again, her argument was that putting that in the Bill would be key, since it would show the world not only that we have the arguments and are practising what we preach but that we have a proselytising role to play in relation to the wider world.

It was good to hear the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, supporting points that have been made in this debate—particularly the view of the noble Earl that there are very few doubters left in Parliament. He may be wrong about that; I think there are one or two scurrying around. He also points out that the department has a bit more to do before it is walking the walk. We should think about that. He made a good point about the recent agreement with Japan and the lack of alternative energy proposals within it. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, also made a good point about how not just farmers, whom he mentioned, but the wider public want the Government to reach further on this to find zero-carbon targets in all that they do—and that of course applies to imports.

I look forward to hearing the noble Lord’s response. He will understand that we think we will come back to this, perhaps not in the form of this amendment but on other related issues about non-regression of standards, as we progress through the Bill.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 14 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Purvis, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, seeks to prevent the Government from signing international trade agreements or laying an international trade agreement under CRaG, unless they confirm to Parliament that the agreements are compliant with domestic and international environmental obligations.

I assure noble Lords that we remain firmly committed to upholding high environmental standards. We understand and share the public’s concern about protecting our natural environment. Having been lucky enough to visit both Antarctica and the high Arctic in the last five years, I can relate to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who cited Sir David Attenborough’s deep concerns about our planet. She is right and he is right. I have seen climate change for myself and it is real.

I take great pride in stating again that none of the 28 agreements signed with 57 countries has diluted standards in environmental protections. We have voluntarily published parliamentary reports for your Lordships’ reference, alongside every continuity agreement, which provide evidence of our commitment to environmental protection and sustainability. To be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Curry, over 130 hours of debate on the Bill and its 2017-19 predecessor, no Peer or Member of the other place has been able to identify a single example of any of our continuity agreements undermining our domestic or international environmental obligations. I do not believe that any example was provided in this debate either. My noble friend Lord Trenchard made this point in a powerful speech, and I believe he is right.

The Government have been very clear that any future trade agreements must uphold high standards in the protection of the environment. We will not compromise on this. I remind your Lordships that the EU (Withdrawal) Act already provides legislative underpinning by transferring the EU’s rigorous standards on environmental protection and sustainability on to the UK statute book in full. Our high regulatory standards are not dependent on EU membership.

The remarks of my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lord Trenchard hinted at our approach. We are using trade policy to promote the clean growth and climate change objectives of Her Majesty’s Government, helping to deliver the full economic benefit of the UK’s shift to a low-carbon economy. The energy White Paper, published just this week, underlines our ambition in this space, and your Lordships will be aware that a Statement will be repeated in the House tomorrow on this very subject.

The UK has often been a leader in the development of environmental standards, and we go significantly further than our trading partners. The UK was the first country in the world to introduce legally binding greenhouse gas emission-reduction targets through the Climate Change Act 2008. We were also the first major economy in the world to set a legally binding target to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across the economy by 2050. In our outline approaches to free trade agreements with the US, Japan, New Zealand and Australia, we have committed to securing provisions that will help trade in low-carbon goods and services, supporting R&D and innovation in sectors such as offshore wind. My noble friend Lord Sheikh cited the importance of this sector in his remarks.

The UK is already a global leader in offshore wind, with the largest installed capacity in the world. The UK aims to produce enough offshore wind to power every home, quadrupling how much we produce to 40 gigawatts by 2030. The UK could also establish a first-mover opportunity to develop advanced operations and maintenance services in wind farm decommissioning, which could become a £53 billion market by 2050.

Additionally, as many noble Lords are already aware, on 18 November, the Prime Minister—who by the way is taking a lead—set out his 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution. Covering clean energy, transport, nature and innovative technologies, the Prime Minister’s blueprint will allow the UK to forge ahead with eradicating its contribution to climate change by 2050. All of this will come in the year that the UK chairs the COP 26 summit in Glasgow, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned.

These are not the actions of a Government intent on reducing environmental standards—far from it. This is one of the most ambitious climate agendas in the world. I wholly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who said that we just offer warm words on climate change and no action plans. He could not be further from the truth on this. I was particularly pleased to see that the former Vice-President Al Gore, either today or yesterday, praised the UK’s leadership in banning the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030.

I remind your Lordships that we are seeking only to replicate EU trade agreements to which we already enjoy access. If this amendment applied to our continuity programme, it would result in up to 40 ministerial Statements, all of which would be nearly identical, confirming that we are replicating the status quo.

Amendment 21 is in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Boycott. As I have explained, our continuity agreements, the implementation of which is provided for by the Bill, are fully aligned with environmental obligations such as the UN sustainable development goals and the Paris climate change conference, and will remain so, as the Bill seeks to replicate existing EU agreements. It is indeed good news that President-elect Biden has iterated his support for the Paris Agreement, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, remarked.

ClientEarth, the Trade Justice Movement, the NFU, the CBI and others all agree with the objectives of this work. As set out in the 25-year environment plan, our ambition is to be the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than we found it. As I reassured your Lordships not long ago, our continuity agreements are in full compliance with every other international convention named in the amendment, whether it was passed at the UN level or through other multilateral fora.

This amendment would also require the publication of an environmental report for every continuity agreement that we signed, and then additional update reports to be tabled every 12 months. This would result in over 100 reports over the lifespan of this Parliament, for a set of continuity agreements that simply replicate existing FTAs to which we are already a party. Surely noble Lords will agree that this is neither necessary nor proportionate. I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, but I will have to write to my noble friend Lord Caithness, who asked questions about what the reports were, where they were coming from and whether they would report on health and the environment. I pledge to do that.

We already publish a parliamentary report alongside each agreement laid under CRaG, setting out our approach to delivering continuity, and will continue to do so for all remaining continuity agreements that we sign. These reports confirm our replication of sustainability chapters in EU agreements.

The Government have always been clear that we are wholly committed to the preservation and improvement of the environment. The continuity agreements we have signed thus far maintain our commitment to vigorously defending and upholding environmental standards. As such, I ask the noble Lord and noble Baroness not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, this has been a good debate on an important issue. We have heard some very expert contributions from all sides of the House set out the scene clearly. In responding to the debate, I will also speak to Amendment 19 in my name, which I am pleased has some support from the noble Lords who spoke before me.

The issue that distinguishes my amendment from those in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is—if I can use an inelegant term—the fact that I was trying to provide in the amendment a little wiggle room for the Government on ISDS. I mean that in the sense of offering the Minister and the Secretary of State, when a proposal for an ISDS mechanism comes forward within a trade agreement, the chance to argue the case in Parliament and get support for it, should that be necessary in his or her judgment in relation to the particular case concerned. However, today’s debate has polarised the views of those who are concerned about ISDS. Probably the right thing to do is to signal at this stage that I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and we would be prepared to follow her into the Lobbies if she wished to test the opinion of the House.

The reasons for that are easily summed up; we can look to the cases drawn up by my noble friend Lord Hendy, the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. For a moment, I thought that he was going to turn into a serial rebel with his victory earlier on in our debates this afternoon; I also thought that he might wish also to move against his own Government on this issue, but he was able to draw a line and point out both the transgressions that were being perpetrated within the Government and the opportunity for a rethink, in his terms, in the light of the schemes before us.

As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, concluded, we probably need to draw a line in the sand and explain why we do not believe that ISDS is the model that the Government should be thinking about going forward. It may well be that the multilateral tribune approach is not yet right. There may also be a better case to be made for the use of our own courts; after all, we have an experienced and expert judiciary and a lot of court experience in these matters. If we are doing trade deals with countries that also have mature legal systems, it is hard to see why an ISDS scheme needs to be there unless, as my noble friend Lord Hendy said, this is part of some overall scheme of preferential treatment for those who have investment to spare but find the risks too great and need the assurances of an ISDS system to back up their support.

We live in different times. I do not know whether the old arguments will work, but I do know that what we see before us with ISDS is not right. It is no longer fit for purpose— it must change. We should start that progress by supporting the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendment 15, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and Amendment 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. These proposed new clauses concern the approach taken to investment protection and the settlement of investment disputes where these provisions are included in free trade agreements. I will try to restrict my comments to points germane to these amendments.

The UK has included these provisions in more than 90 bilateral investment treaties, which have been crucial for our overseas investors. The UK is one of the most open countries for investments. That is because one of the great attractions for foreign investment is the fair and independent legal system underpinning domestic and foreign investment. We look to use investment provisions in trade agreements to guarantee equivalent levels of legal certainty for our businesses expanding overseas. These businesses make sizeable investments and incur significant risks. It is therefore vital that they can operate in a free and fair environment with a means of independent redress where treaty commitments have been breached.

In response to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—not that I expect I will cause noble Lords to change their minds, sadly—many major British companies tell me that the existence of ISDS in certain overseas countries is absolutely germane to their decision to invest in that country. I recognise that noble Lords are concerned that these interests are correctly balanced in our free trade agreements with the Government’s right to regulate in the public interest. That is an objective I share. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for answering the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on Canada in such depth and with such erudition—in words I could not hope to better.

Amendment 15 would permit the UK to sign a trade agreement only if it commits all parties to pursue the establishment of a multilateral investment tribunal system and an appellate mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes. It would also require all such disputes against the UK to be heard by UK domestic courts until such a system is in place. Your Lordships will no doubt be aware that not all trade agreements include investment protection and dispute settlement. It would not be appropriate to require all trade agreements to include a commitment to pursue a multilateral investment tribunal system or for disputes to be heard in UK domestic courts. In the absence of such a system, including this requirement would only hinder the progress of UK trade policy.

The UK is fully engaged in negotiations at the UN Commission on International Trade Law on the options to reform investor-state dispute settlement and the possibility of establishing a multilateral investment court —MIC. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that the process of triangulation continues, and we have not yet come to a conclusion on the most appropriate way forward. Binding the hands of both the UK and our treaty partners before negotiations are concluded may not be in either their or the UK’s best interests, especially, as my noble friend Lord Lansley noted, some of our major trading partners are against the concept of the MIC. My noble friend Lord Caithness asked about ISDS and China. I confirm, perhaps surprisingly, that we have had a bilateral investment treaty with China since 1986. However, perhaps to the relief of noble Lords, there has never been a case brought against the UK under that treaty—nor do I expect there to be.

As for the requirement for UK courts to hear investment disputes, depending on the circumstances foreign investors in the UK will already have a means to legal redress against the Government without resorting to ISDS. It is likely that if we impose a requirement for disputes to be handled only by national courts, this will need to be agreed on a reciprocal basis with treaty partners. This would then require disputes brought by UK investors against a host state to be heard in their national courts, undermining the access to independent ad hoc arbitration for UK investors which has successfully supported UK investors worldwide for the past 40 years. I have no doubt that our major investing companies would oppose this.

ISDS in its current form is valuable for UK businesses investing overseas. This in turn benefits UK citizens as their shareholders. Conversely, the UK has never been a respondent in an investment dispute before a tribunal that has gone against it. The UK’s existing stock of bilateral investment treaties all contain ad hoc arbitration as the form of dispute settlement. Arbitration is a widely used means of resolving disputes between parties, including under international and domestic law.

Amendment 19 would similarly require the UK to pursue the establishment of a multilateral investment tribunal system and appellate mechanism. It would also result in the UK being unable to implement trade agreements containing ISDS unless the subject matter of a claim is something under which UK domestic law offers redress to UK persons. It would require the Government to approve a mandate for a free trade agreement containing ISDS provisions through regulations of both Houses of Parliament.

I will start with the redress available to investors under domestic law. The amendment overlooks the fact that, depending on circumstances, foreign investors in the UK already have the means to seek legal redress against the UK Government through domestic law, without resorting to ISDS. I humbly suggest that is one reason cases have never been brought against the UK under ISDS. As I mentioned, UK courts are regarded internationally as reliable and independent. It is worth reiterating that this is one reason the UK has never been a respondent in an ISDS case.

The amendment requires that the Government approve the inclusion of ISDS provisions through both Houses of Parliament. The Government have already committed to publishing their negotiating objectives, along with an initial impact assessment and a response to any public consultations, before entering negotiations. I humbly suggest that noble Lords know well that, as required under the CRaG procedure, the Government will lay the final treaty text alongside an explanatory memorandum before both Houses for 21 sitting days. This House has the power to prevent ratification should the ISDS provisions in the proposed treaty not be to the satisfaction of noble Lords. The House of Commons can do so indefinitely.

On the point raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh about dispute resolution in any EU agreement, I am afraid that, like me, noble Lords will have to wait and see. I hope this reassures noble Lords and, on that basis, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, is not speaking, so we move now to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.

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

My Lords, this has been a good debate at a more detailed level than we were perhaps expecting at this stage of our considerations on the Bill. It is none the less important for that.

I took Amendment 16, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to be a probing amendment in a sense. It is trying to tease out the different strands of activity among the issues arising from sustainable development goals about trade, particularly with disadvantaged countries, and government policy in relation to it. That is linked to the reduction in funds available for future development work in this area.

We are going to return to this on many areas over the years, I suspect; the impact that this cut will have on our available resources to support and ensure development in countries that need it will be a feature of our debates in future. However, it is not capable of being sorted at this stage by a single amendment. What we need is a clear statement from the Government on their policy, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give that.

The other amendment in this group follows on, as has been explained, from quite a good discussion in Committee and a subsequent meeting organised by the Minister, of which I had a readout, because I was not able to attend myself. It raises interesting issues, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, may be right that there is no issue here, because the Government are not going to do what they might be seen to be accused of in the terms of the amendment. On the other hand, there are doubts about how the whole EU structure for resolving how aid is given, and in what form it is given—in direct support and in ensuring that the impact of any support does not affect the ability of those countries involved to be able to trade their way out of their own difficulties—will be resolved. It needs to be resolved properly before we can say that we have a proper trade policy. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, we have now concluded 27 agreements with 59 countries. There is a very small number of countries that we will not have completed agreements with before the end of this year, but I am pleased to say that the agreement in principle with Vietnam was concluded last week, during the Trade Secretary’s visit, and full details will be made available to the House in the normal way in due course.

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

My Lords, when he answered the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, a few minutes ago, the Minister was equivocal about whether the UK was considering joining RCEP. Could he give a clear yes-or-no answer as to whether, if China were a member by that stage—and it has applied to join—we would apply?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I am happy to give a clear answer to the noble Lord: at the present time, we have no intention of concluding a free trade agreement with China or of applying to join RCEP.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, a stranger to our Parliament would find this whole ping-pong process completely bizarre and almost impossible to follow. I have some sympathy, as this is my first time going right through ping-pong from beginning to end, even though I have been in the House for over 10 years. However, the Motion paper before us today, which I think has reached everybody, although superficially complex, tells the story rather well—over eight pages, it must be said.

In essence, we are where we are because we took the view that the internal market Bill as originally drafted was unbalanced between market access principles, which we felt might provoke a race to the bottom on standards, and the managed but limited divergence of standards which we thought would naturally flow from the wish of the devolved Administrations to reflect the views of those who elected them and the particular circumstances, as the Minister says, of their areas. We wanted to make sure that market access principles do not always trump the common frameworks process. We believe that that process has many benefits to offer in building coherence and a feeling of engagement with the UK internal market.

We made that position clear to the Ministers involved in this Bill in our first meeting. Motion A tells the story of the progress in recent weeks. As the Minister said, the meetings were often robust. That is not to be regretted because it is only through real engagement with some of the deeper issues raised by Bills that you can understand the positions of the two sides and make progress, where it is clear one has to compromise one way or another. There were, as the Minister said, many meetings and exchanges of drafts. It is fair to say that when Bills involve many departments—in this case, three separate departments—it is difficult to work across them and sometimes it is hard to manage meetings that necessarily involve 20 or even 30 advisers and others, who need to be involved in developing the thinking behind them.

To cut a reasonably long story short, the meeting that unblocked the situation took place last week, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, found the key by building a dialogue with Ministers on where and in what form the changes he wanted to see, which we supported, could be made, and in such a way that the issues raised by those responsible for the original drafting would not be sacrificed.

I would like to thank the Ministers—in particular, Chloe Smith, Martin Callanan and Nick True—for sticking the course with us. It would have been easy for them to stamp their feet and say, “Get lost; we have a majority of 80 and we’re going to see this through”, but they did not. I think they sensed there was an issue that needed to be bottomed out for the good of the country as a whole, and I admire them for that.

A special mention needs to be made of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. He is the last person who would want to be singled out for praise, but we would not be where we are today had he not spotted an issue he wanted to address early on, and used his skill and experience in drafting and interpreting the law to pick away at the issues and come up with a solution. He said in his last speech to your Lordships’ House on this issue that it was a bit like unwrapping a Christmas present overenthusiastically wrapped with lots of paper that concealed a rather small present. I said to him that he should have extended the metaphor and said that good things come in small packages. He felt that that was not the way to go, but I will use it now, because it gets to the point of what I am saying.

What the noble and learned Lord has drafted and we and the Minister have accepted is a very small change to the Bill as originally drafted. But it is really important, because it restores the balance that we feared was lost without giving undue prominence or unbalancing the general principles underlying the Bill. It respects how we do things in this country, and the devolution settlement in particular. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, should accept the plaudits offered to him for having the idea in the first place, seeing it through and finding the key that unlocked the differences between us. The differences were real and important, and we have resolved them. I am very grateful to the Minister for what he said today. It has been a good process, and I recommend accepting the measure; we hope it will work well in practice.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I will not go through the same list of people to thank as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the Minister did. I just want to add my thanks and express my admiration for the dogged wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in getting us to this point.

Never knowingly unchurlish, I would say that this Bill is not the direction we would have chosen to go in—that is a fact—but, over the course of the past five weeks, I have become absolutely convinced that, thanks to the dialogue between all the parties involved, this Bill has been improved substantially. The illegality was taken out, of course, but the sensitivity toward the devolution settlements, which was not there to start with, has been gradually installed, piece by piece. To get there, we have talked of Welsh coal. We have talked of Scottish teachers. We have talked of drinking straws and Scotch whisky, and of many other examples.

In our thoughtful debate, we have heard from people—including Members on these Benches—who care passionately about the union and felt that things had to happen to this Bill. It is with great pleasure that I can say that many of those things have happened; we are in a much better place and, clearly, look forward to hearing what the devolved authorities have to say.

If I have one reservation, it is about the mechanics of how this market will work and how the office for the internal market will sit alongside the CMA going forward. Clearly, that story may well run but, as the Minister set out, the OIM will have a pivotal role in monitoring how this market runs and in informing the process. How that is configured, who is in it and what its process are will, in the end, be the measure of how successful, smooth and, frankly, unfettered this internal market ends up being.

With those words, I again thank the Minister and his colleagues, and give a special mention to the Bill team, which has also worked relentlessly on this. We look forward to sending the Bill away from this place unmolested by any further amendments.

Green Economic Recovery

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point; the Midlands green growth conversation is an important piece of work, and I look forward to the Midlands Engine growth action plan, which I understand is being published in the new year. The 10-point plan sets out our intention to “reinvigorate our industrial heartlands”, such as the north and the Midlands.

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

My Lords, we face increasingly high levels of unemployment post-Covid-19, so does the Minister agree that retraining will be key to the green recovery? Can he explain why that is not mentioned in the 10-point plan? Can he also confirm what budget has been allocated for retraining and that it will be additional to the funding already announced?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord that retraining will play an important part. We recently launched the Green Jobs Taskforce to support it. It will look at the key challenges faced by employers and workers in supporting a green recovery, ensuring that we have the right pipeline of talent and skills provision.