United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness 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 Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and a real privilege and honour to follow the speeches of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. They were speeches of real quality, and they got absolutely to the heart of the problem that had been identified in the Commons—indeed, identified time and again.

Everybody accepts the need for trade that is as frictionless as possible within the internal market of the UK. Everybody equally respects the need for appropriate divergence. How are those two matters to be dealt with? The answer, which everybody in this House and the Commons agreed with, was the common frameworks process, set up by the Conservative Government, with the agreement of the devolved Assemblies, in October 2017. It is a process that has stood the test of time and works to deliver divergence by agreement.

I note in passing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said that he often led the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. However, one thing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, did not learn from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was emollience. However, the trenchant language used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, today was appropriate. He said that “actions speak louder than words”. He said that if we are to believe the commitments repeated in the last 24 hours by the Government on devolution, they need to deliver on their promise that the common frameworks process should be allowed to complement the internal market arrangements.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said that, without some amendments to this Bill, it would be a “misuse of language” to say that they complement each other. I beg to suggest that what he meant by that is that if you have only the market access principles and no legal recognition of the common frameworks process, that process is completely ignored because—to use the language of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in an earlier part of the proceedings on this Bill—this is a “blunderbuss” that, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, does not allow for a key part of the functioning of devolution, namely divergence in the appropriate case.

We on this side of the House support Amendments 1, 38 and 51. We think they do give effect to the common frameworks in a legally binding way, without in any way undermining the need for a properly functioning internal market—the need for which we recognise. I earnestly ask the Government, on behalf of this side of the House, to do what they kept saying they would do: find a solution to the problem. It is so important, not just for the proceedings of this Bill but for the preservation of the devolution settlements in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the preservation of the union.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow all the speeches so far, which have so compellingly made the case for the common frameworks process. I wish to speak in favour of the amendments in this group, which have been spoken to so effectively by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. These are amendments which, rightly, seek to give effect and primacy to decisions agreed under the common frameworks process. I regret that it was not possible for me to join the Committee stage proceedings, but I have read the Official Report of the first-class discussion of similar amendments debated on 25 October.

The issue of common frameworks and the lack of any recognition in this Bill of their existence, let alone their importance, goes to the heart of many of my profound misgivings about this proposed legislation. As has been noted several times in the past and already several times today, the creation of the common frameworks process can be traced back to the Joint Ministerial Committee declaration on 16 October 2017. Among the principles set out in that communique was that:

“Common frameworks will be established where they are necessary in order to: enable the functioning of the UK internal market, while acknowledging policy divergence”—


and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Falconer of Thoroton, emphasised the words “policy divergence”. Among the other principles was that:

“Frameworks will respect the devolution settlements and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures, and will therefore … maintain, as a minimum, equivalent flexibility for tailoring policies to the specific needs of each territory as is afforded by current EU rules”.


Crucially, and to state the obvious, that declaration was agreed by the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations.

The importance of such agreement being reached was recommended by the conclusions of the European Union Committee of the House, which, in its fourth report of the 2017-19 Session, said:

“Any durable solution will need the consent of all the nations of the United Kingdom, and of their elected representatives.”


It went on to say that

“A successful settlement cannot be imposed by the UK Government: it must be developed in partnership with the devolved Governments.”


The Government themselves acknowledge in their most recent report, published only a few weeks ago, that

“the UK Government and devolved administrations have continued to work jointly to develop UK Common Frameworks, to protect the UK economy and give maximum certainty to businesses, consumers and international partners”,

and, notably, that United Kingdom Ministers commend UK common frameworks as ensuring

“regulatory coherence across the UK by flexibly managing any potential policy divergence across the four nations.”

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I follow on from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, by paying tribute to my successor as Advocate-General for Scotland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. I have known the noble and learned Lord for over 40 years, and he is undoubtedly one of the best advocates of our generation. When a lawyer of his calibre and experience says that he found it difficult to reconcile what he considered to be his obligations as a law officer with the Prime Minister’s policy intentions with respect to this Bill, noble Lords should sit up and take note. In an age when resignation on a matter of principle seems to have gone out of fashion, surely we must commend the personal and professional integrity shown by the noble and learned Lord.

As someone who has seen devolution work in practice from within both the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments, I express real concern about the potential for this Bill to do untold damage to the delicately crafted architecture of the devolution settlements. I seriously question whether this Bill is necessary. As the White Paper itself acknowledges, the UK internal market is already strong, with overwhelmingly frictionless trade. By contrast, the evidential base for needing legislative requirements for mutual recognition or non-discrimination between the different political units of the UK is wholly underwhelming.

Divergences already exist. More than 30 years before devolution, different building standards were adopted in Scotland, but now the White Paper flags up differential building standards as a threat to the internal market. I certainly believe that the United Kingdom Governments of the 1960s had a better understanding than the authors of this Bill and the White Paper that differences in climate and the built environment between the Home Counties and Orkney merit different standards. Even within the EU regulatory framework, devolution has led to some divergences to reflect local needs and political priorities. That surely is the essence of devolution. Indeed, the United Kingdom Government supported the Scottish Government in the European Court of Justice when the Scottish Government sought to bring in minimum unit alcohol pricing in Scotland. But this Bill does not replicate the limited grounds set out as legitimate aims, which are provided for under Article 36 of the TFEU, where a legislature seeks to diverge from internal market principles. Nor, indeed, is there any reference in this Bill to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which also underpin the current EU framework. As a result, the scope of devolution is restricted, unprecedentedly without the consent of the devolved legislatures. In replying, can the Minister explain why these differences are allowed to arise?

One further compelling reason to put this Bill aside, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is its curious silence in its provisions on common frameworks, heralded as a way forward three years ago. In spite of difficulties, efforts to achieve common frameworks have enjoyed buy-in from all the devolved administrations. On 15 September in another place, Cabinet Office Minister Chloe Smith said that the five frameworks would be delivered by the end of this year. In seeking to commend to the House the whole of the 17th report of the Constitution Committee, on which I had the privilege of serving, I particularly refer to our comments on common frameworks, and our conclusion at paragraph 57:

“We consider that adhering to the principles agreed for formulating common frameworks would improve the likelihood of reaching agreement on how to progress the Bill. We are not convinced that opportunities for managing the UK internal market through the common frameworks process have been exhausted. This contributes to our doubts about the necessity for the Bill.”


I do not underestimate the challenges, but surely if there is a way forward which promotes and facilitates co-operation over the conflict and mistrust which this Bill has come to symbolise, it is in the best interests of all parts of our United Kingdom that we vigorously pursue it.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I want to say a few words in support of Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I know from experience that when you have a requirement to report on anything without a time limit, there is always the tendency not to do it. There is always something more pressing, and even if the Minister raises it, the civil servant will say, “Well, no one has actually asked for it, Minister, and we have got this or that.” The only way to keep a piece of legislation or a policy under review is to have it timetabled. Whether it is every three months, four months or six months, the key point is that you have a timetable and you have a requirement to report at the specific point of that timetable, because then it gets into the system.

I urge the Minister, thinking not of himself but of Ministers in years to come, to accept this amendment or a close variant of it, that, crucially, puts in a time limit. A refusal today could snooker us when trying to get reports in the future, as we end up with parliamentary questions such as, “When is the Minister proposing to review?” and answers saying, “He or she is certainly thinking about it”, but not getting the review. I urge the Minister, looking to all our political futures, to accept some sort of time limitation. As such, I am very happy to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my colleagues on the Constitution Committee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Fookes, have made their points very clearly, so I am very happy to rest behind their submissions.

[Baroness Northover (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I raised in Committee that there were numerous Henry VIII powers in the Bill, as the Delegated Powers Committee flagged in its devastating report. I am very glad that the Government have responded to the criticisms of the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee by bringing forward these amendments, even if they are not comprehensive.

I am glad that we have been able to scrutinise the Bill in this House in a way that simply did not happen in the Commons. This Bill is indeed a mixture of emergency and permanent changes. I note particularly that the Government propose affirmative procedures in Amendments 58, 66 and 67, and “made affirmative” procedures in Amendments 68, 69, 72 and 73. The notes say that it is either affirmative or “made affirmative”—although I note what the Minister, said—in Amendment 109. I welcome these amendments. Those serving on the Constitution Committee have tabled Amendments 48 and 50, which bring more precision to this, and I hear what they have to say. Although I welcome what the Government have brought forward, I hope that the Minister can give further assurances.

--- Later in debate ---

When we considered this Bill, the Constitution Committee had seen no justification from the Government for the retrospective provisions. We therefore advised in our report that Ministers should set out the justification. Last Friday, 19 June, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, wrote to our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, responding to our report and including a response to our concerns about retrospectivity. Such is the speed with which the Bill is progressing through Parliament that your Lordships’ Constitution Committee has not yet had an opportunity to consider the Minister’s response. It will, I am sure, assist your Lordships if the Minister, when responding to this group of amendments could explain the need for retrospective cancellation of court judgments in this context and answer the other questions I have posed.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness [V]]

My Lords, in Committee I made the point that even during a crisis it is still important that we are vigilant in scrutinising legislation, particularly where basic rule of law issues are at stake. Specifically, I drew attention to the provisions in the Bill that raise the fundamental question of retrospective legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, one of my fellow members of the Constitution Committee, has just outlined why it is important that we closely scrutinise attempts by government to introduce retrospection in legislation.

I place on record my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his very prompt reply to some of the points I raised in Committee—echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, who is also on the Constitution Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated, we have now received the Government’s response to the Constitution Committee’s seventh report on the Bill—although, as he pointed out, the committee has not had a proper opportunity to consider that response.

As we have heard, retrospective legislation prima facie offends the rule of law, although it is recognised that there will be occasions, when there is an urgent or compelling need, when it may be necessary. I will address the retrospection issues in Amendment 40 and its equivalent Northern Ireland provision, Amendment 42. They draw particular attention to the retrospective nature of Clauses 10 and 11, which suspend directors’ liability for wrongful trading in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Under insolvency legislation, the general rule is that a court may hold directors personally liable for allowing a company to continue trading beyond the point when insolvency appears inevitable. The provisions in Clauses 10 and 11 oblige the courts to assume that a director is not responsible for any worsening of the financial position of the company or its creditors that occurs during the “relevant period”, which starts on 1 March and—with reference to the amendment the Government have just moved—would conclude on 30 September this year.

Clearly, if that is the assumption the courts are obliged to make—there is no suggestion in the legislation that it is a rebuttable presumption—no one will go to court to challenge the behaviour of a director. Indeed, the rationale for the policy, set out in the Explanatory Notes and reiterated in the Government’s response to the Constitution Committee report, is that the deterrent to a company continuing to trade where there is a threat of insolvency is removed by these clauses. Pandemic-induced insolvencies can thus be avoided.

To use the words of the Explanatory Notes, I fully recognise the merit of helping

“to prevent businesses, which would be viable but for the impact of the pandemic, from closing.”

I suspect that most, if not all, of us would generally assent to that. However, I will point out two aspects of the Government’s arguments that need further clarification. As pointed out in the Constitution Committee’s seventh report, the removal of the so-called deterrent effect cannot credibly be said to have carried any weight in decisions taken by directors between 1 March and the date when the policy to suspend personal liability for wrongful trading was announced, 28 March, allowing almost four weeks of extra retrospective effect. Secondly, as the Government acknowledge in paragraph 225 of the Explanatory Notes:

“There is no requirement to show that the company’s worsening financial position was due to the COVID-19 pandemic.”


The amendments to which I am speaking seek to maintain the spirit of the concession on wrongful trading and would apply only if the courts are satisfied that on the underlying facts, creditors can discharge the burden of proving that the instance of wrongful trading was not attributable to the financial pressures of the pandemic.

The Constitution Committee’s seventh report says that

“measures with retrospective effect are exceptional and undesirable in principle, requiring the strongest possible justification. We do not think the Government has yet made the case for them”.

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the Government have now responded. In fairness, in my reading of that response the Minister seeks to give some justification for the exceptional retrospective effect of these provisions in relation to wrongful trading. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: it would be helpful if the Government could set out on the record, on the Floor of the House, what these justifications are.

Furthermore, on page 4 of his reply the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, states that

“the temporary suspension of liability for wrongful trading is required to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 emergency, and is a proportionate measure. There are safeguards against abuse in the form of other, unchanged elements of Company and Insolvency law. As I have also set out above, given the inevitable delay in drawing up legislation, it was essential to give public assurance that these provisions would have retrospective effect in order for them to be able to have their intended effect on directors’ confidence in continuing to keep their companies going.”

In conclusion, I have two questions for the Minister arising from that response. First, what is the rationale for the retrospection’s having effect from 1 March, rather than from a date when the Government were able to give the public assurance referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, given that ahead of the announcement, there could be no removal of the so-called deterrent effect? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that an announcement by the Government of their intention to change the law is not, by itself, sufficient justification for using retrospective legislation and should not become a regular practice? I look forward with interest to her reply.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Baroness Fookes? I call Lord Bourne.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 16th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, in the two amendments she has tabled, to which I have added my name. I speak not only as a member of the Constitution Committee but as a former member and chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I was delighted to hear my successor speak so robustly and correctly. Over the years, I have become increasingly concerned by the way the Government take on to themselves more and more delegated powers. It is important, even when we have a serious problem with coronavirus, that we make our case firmly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, discussed the two amendments in detail, so I will not go into them, other than to say that Clause 18, which we are trying to soften, is an immensely powerful one. It gives the Government unrivalled powers to take whatever powers they think they need in this emergency, without much restraint.

I regard Clause 18 as King Henry VIII at his most obese, and it is time he was slimmed down; the two amendments standing in our names try to do just that. I thought we had got there with Clause 23, which was the expiry one, but, when you look at it closely, you find that it is not a sunset clause at all because it is possible to renew the power to make these amendments. So I regard it as a pseudo-sunset clause, and it is high time that we all make sure that the Government do not get away, whenever they want, with whatever they want. We must bear in mind too, that it will not always be the present Government; some of the powers would remain for other Administrations, who might not be as enlightened as I am sure the present Government think they are.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Taylor of Bolton, who are both my colleagues on the Constitution Committee. I have added my name to the amendments that have been spoken to in the previous two contributions, and that carry on the theme of both my noble friend Lady Northover and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, about the wide powers in the Bill. As indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the Constitution Committee accepts that there is a need for temporary emergency arrangements to protect business and the economy in the current pandemic crisis. But the committee also stresses, in its seventh report, published last Friday, that:

“During times of crisis and emergency it is all the more important to be vigilant about constitutional principles, such as the rule of law and parliamentary accountability. The need for an urgent response to COVID-19 does not justify Parliament neglecting its duty to consider the constitutional implications of the legislation presented to it.”


As speakers have already mentioned, there are very wide Henry VIII powers in the Bill, not least in Clause 18, which Amendments 66 and 70 seek to address. The Constitution Committee in a report in the 2017-19 Session specifically looked at the use of delegated powers, and said that Henry VIII powers are

“a departure from constitutional principle. Departure from constitutional principle should be contemplated only where a full and clear explanation and justification is provided”.

One looks in vain here for some full and clear explanation. Rather, we are told, in the delegated powers memorandum:

“There are no specific plans to use the power to make temporary changes at present, but it is likely that its use will be considered where representations have been made by industry or where discussions with key stakeholders have identified areas where urgent legislation could help save otherwise viable businesses or mitigate the impact of the pandemic otherwise.”


That is not exactly what one would call an intimation of specific intent.

Notwithstanding these misgivings, Amendments 66 and 70 are relatively modest, so I hope that they will commend themselves to the Government. The noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Fookes, have already explained how they will work. In Amendment 66, we seek that a review should take place and report to Parliament. We have reviews of the current emergency regulations, and we find that they are more often shared with the Downing Street press briefing than with Parliament, but this modest amendment would require a report to Parliament. Amendment 70 would see a sunset clause in effect no later than 30 April 2022. The amendment probably to be spoken to later in this group by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, would have an earlier sunset clause, and I must say I find that somewhat attractive. In the Government trying to take powers like this, they should adhere to constitutional principle. When such widespread powers are sought, they should be well and truly limited in their effect.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend Lord Blencathra, chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, and other experts on delegated powers. I am sure that we will get a helpful response from my noble friend the Minister on these wider powers. As has been said, I will speak on Clause 39 stand part and the Northern Ireland equivalent, Clause 40.

I tabled these amendments with the help of our excellent Bill clerks, alongside my Amendments 68 and 74, which I may not now need to move as my questions are exploratory in nature; that may help us to make progress. I want to open up a discussion on time limits, particularly of the emergency measures. As I said at Second Reading, I support all these measures, but they change the balance of corporate law and can make life more difficult for the lenders and investors that businesses need for success.

I am very concerned about the powers of extension, which I do not believe will be properly scrutinised if used. Some are more contentious than others; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised a good point about wrongful trading, and, as I said, even delays in annual general meetings and corporate filings are unwelcome. These provide vital transparency and the opportunity for probing questions to be asked of companies. If the Opposition’s proposal to extend the emergency measures to the end of September is accepted, I see no need for an extension to the various emergency powers, and certainly not of the easy kind proposed. So that I can consider my position on Report on the various amendments that we are discussing, I would like more details from the Minister on the use of the powers of extension; more of an analysis of the downsides of the emergency measures, as well as their obvious advantages; and details of the criteria that will be applied if and when an extension of power is used, how any costs will be assessed and when the arrangements will sunset completely.

Clauses 21 and 22 seem very elastic—a pseudo-sunset clause, as my noble friend Lady Fookes said—which is not what we are looking for on these emergency measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

My Lords, I can be brief because my amendment in this group contains a separated half of the GB-Northern Ireland pair of amendments relating to small businesses that I spoke about in the previous group, so I do not need to explain those again, and in the interests of time I will forgo speaking on anything else.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness [V]]

My Lords, I will seek to be brief. The point I will make relates to retrospection, which Amendment 129 from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, perhaps illuminates; he is trying to make some of the provisions even more retrospective. I will not work through all the detail; suffice it to say that in Schedule 10 we are asked to enact a provision that would retrospectively void a court order that had been legally pursued and granted. In the words of the Government’s Explanatory Notes, this

“may lead to the petitioner becoming liable for the cost of doing so.”

I do not doubt that there are important business and commercial reasons underpinning these provisions. I ask simply that the Committee proceeds with the utmost caution when making retrospective provision. I quote from the Constitution Committee’s seventh report:

“We recognise that the COVID-19 pandemic presents companies with considerable challenges and that the Government is rightly seeking to protect businesses and the economy as a whole … However, measures with retrospective effect are exceptional and undesirable in principle, requiring the strongest possible justification. We do not think the Government has yet made the case for them in this Bill.”


I simply invite the Minister, when he comes to reply, to try to make a justification and, if he is unable to do so in the time remaining in these foreshortened proceedings today, to undertake to make a response to the Constitution Committee’s report before the House meets for Report.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

My Lords, if I might take just a couple of seconds of your Lordships’ time, we have 10 minutes left to finish this group. I encourage people to make their comments as short as possible, so that we at least finish this group.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Report: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th March 2017 Lords Chamber

I hope I have said enough on this occasion to show that, while we welcome what the Government did in the other place to ensure that the Secretary of State, in appointing members to UKRI and its board, must have regard to the desirability of including at least one person with relevant experience in either Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, I do not think it is sufficient. Will the noble Lord think again about this issue? I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 184, 193 and 194 in my name. Amendments 184 and 194 are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. In many respects these amendments complement the amendment that has just been moved. I will describe briefly what they would do. Amendment 184 would require that, before approving a research and innovation strategy for UKRI, the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult the devolved Administrations. Amendment 193, which relates to Clause 100, would add an obligation to the general duties of UKRI to have regard to the promotion of research and innovation in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Amendment 194 refers to guidance that would be given by the Secretary of State to UKRI. It states that the Secretary of State,

“must have regard to the promotion of research and innovation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.

I apologise that I was not able to be here in Committee as I was abroad at the time, but I noted the debate and the amendments moved very effectively and eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. He emphasised that this is not special pleading for Scotland or any of the devolved parts of our United Kingdom; rather, it seeks to address a situation where UKRI will have a remit right across the United Kingdom but, in respect of some parts of its business, will be focused on England only. We know that, with the best will in the world, if you are dealing day by day with one part it is sometimes easy not to have the full picture of—I do not mean ignore—what is going on in other parts of the United Kingdom.

We know from what has been said in previous debates that the contribution of Scotland’s universities to United Kingdom research and innovation has been immense. Scottish universities certainly punch well above their weight in terms of the research funding that they have received from the research councils. That is a mark of the quality of the research that goes on in Scottish universities and, in turn, of what they put back into United Kingdom research and innovation. That is something I am sure we all wish to see continued.

There have of course been reassurances from the honourable Member for Orpington—the Minister, Mr Jo Johnson MP—and from Sir John Kingman that UKRI will work for the benefit of all parts of the United Kingdom. I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of these aspirations and the personal commitment, but the principal of the University of Edinburgh—I declare an interest that it is one of my almae matres—Professor Tim O’Shea, said in a letter to Mr Jo Johnson on 17 February:

“I remain concerned that UKRI’s attention to devolution issues relies on personal trust rather than being hard-wired into the statutory framework of UKRI”.


These amendments would ensure that some of that hard-wiring was put in statute.

I read the Minister’s response to the debate on 30 January. I also express my thanks to him and his officials for meeting me earlier this week to discuss these amendments. In response to the amendment on statutory consultation he said:

“I disagree that this should be achieved by requiring the Secretary of State to formally consult with the devolved Governments on reserved UK government policy, which would undermine the whole devolution settlement”.—[Official Report, 30/1/17; col. 1004.]


With respect, there is a bit of hyperbole there; nor do I think it is wholly accurate, as I will deal with in a moment.

There is no doubt that important aspects of research and innovation are devolved. I recall when I had responsibility in the Scottish Executive as Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. The annual letter that I sent out to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council referred to priorities, including priorities for research. Research and innovation are in a number of respects devolved matters. The Scottish Government put money into research and innovation in Scotland. This is not a situation where, as was perhaps suggested, having statutory consultation would trespass on a reserved matter. It is important that we have such consultation because important work in research will be going on with which the Scottish Government, or for that matter the Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations, are wholly cognisant.

The Minister’s department, BEIS, will be dealing day in, day out with what is going on in England. It will have a much better picture of what is going on in England, but it is no criticism that it will not be as familiar with the landscape of research and innovation in Scottish institutions. It would not be a very effective use of public funds if, through lack of proper consultation, it led to duplication or it cut across things that were being done in Scotland that could have been done much more effectively and efficiently if there had been that consultation.

My preferred option would certainly be that the Minister would accept the hard-wiring of a statutory requirement, but he knows that devolution has shown flexibility as it has proceeded. There are memorandums of understanding between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government, and indeed the other devolved Administrations. I hope he would be willing to consider that a memorandum of understanding would be possible if he does not feel that the statute book is the proper place for these requirements. Regarding the guidance that the Secretary of State would give to UKRI in Amendment 194, a commitment from the Minister that that guidance will not be in statute but nevertheless would include a direction to UKRI to have regard to the promotion of research and innovation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be very welcome indeed.

I said that it was not wholly the case that these matters were reserved. The reservation in head C12 in Part II of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 refers to:

“Research Councils within the meaning of the Science and Technology Act 1965. The subject-matter of section 5 of that Act (funding of scientific research) so far as relating to Research Councils”.


That has been amended quite significantly. That amendment, passed by a Section 30 order under the Scotland Act in 2004, added the Arts and Humanities Research Council. When it was established it was not covered by the reservation in the Scotland Act 1998. I recall that when the then Higher Education Bill was going through this Parliament, I had to take the legislative consent Motion through the Scottish Parliament to allow the Arts and Humanities Research Council to apply in Scotland. There was subsequently an order—I think that it was the first ever order which reserved something which had previously been devolved back to the Westminster Parliament. My concern is that the minor repeals schedule to this Bill—it is a small-print detail—puts the work of UKRI into Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act. The Bill defines the functions of UK Research and Innovation as to,

“carry out research into science, technology, humanities and new ideas”.

That is probably quite right, because, as we stand here today in March 2017, we do not have a clue what kind of issues will be here in, let us say, March 2027, where it would seem perfectly right and proper for there to be research council activities. However, I do not see “new ideas” in the 1965 Act. Therefore, what I think is being done by this legislation is to extend the reservation. I am not sure that the legislative consent Motion picked that up. I do not think for a moment that it is a deliberate subterfuge or land grab, but I think that it has not been fully thought through. I invite the Minister to address that, because he knows that we are in sensitive times dealing with devolution and devolved and reserved issues.

My main point to the Minister is that he should recognise the different landscape—the different environment —for research and innovation. There is great merit in going forward as a United Kingdom, but the specific arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have to be catered for.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. I add thanks from these Benches to those expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for the government amendments that they have brought forward and for supporting those from noble Lords, which have certainly made it a much better Bill.

Amendment 162 mirrors an amendment which we brought forward in Committee. For all the good reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has expressed, it seems niggardly to have one person trying to represent the three devolved Administrations. The arrangements would be stronger if there were somebody with experience of each of the three. There are distinct differences in higher education provision in the four parts of the United Kingdom. UKRI would benefit if it had relevant experience of all. We note that the amendment insists not that the person be Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish but that they have experience of those three devolved Administrations. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on it.

Fuel Poverty

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

It is certainly a problem, and it has been a problem for successive Administrations. We are trying to move forward: as has been said, the Prime Minister has commented on this area. We need to reach right across the piece: recently I met Christians Against Poverty and discussed its work to help the most vulnerable in society. As with so many issues, this is quite complex. We need to move forward in the competition area, and with meters, and we need to make sure that the schemes for improving energy efficiency—a long-term way of reducing energy bills—are focused on those who really need them.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, the most recent increase in inflation was attributed in part to increased fuel prices. What assessment have the Government made of the additional number of households which will have dropped into fuel poverty because of even further increases as a result of the Brexit-induced decline in sterling? In these circumstances, will the Government consider unfreezing the freeze they put on working-age benefits and tax credits so that the first consequences of Brexit do not fall disproportionately on the poorest and most vulnerable households?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble and learned Lord makes some interesting comments. It will be difficult for me to say yes today. However, I can say that we are continuing the winter fuel payments, which are very important to the 12 million pensioners who benefited from them last winter. We are also taking steps to make sure that this market works well so that affordable fuel is available. We are seeking an energy policy which is secure, clean and affordable for people.