Trade Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

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

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, although I regret to say that I do not agree with a single word he said. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right in his belief that continuation of trade with the European Union requires a reasonable degree of free movement so that companies may dispatch their people, often at short notice, to engage with customers and potential customers for their services.

In Committee, my noble friend Lord Younger said the Government were seeking to agree mobility arrangements with the EU as are

“normally contained in the services part of a trade agreement”.—[Official Report, 13/10/20; col. 981]

Will my noble friend confirm that this is still the situation? Obviously we cannot continue unfettered free movement of people as we have had with EU countries, but we need to offer reasonable short-term entry permissions to EU citizens and to those of our other trade partners.

It is good that the UK-Japan EPA contains a mobility framework permitting UK companies to transfer their employees to live and work in Japan for up to five years. It also permits visa-free travel for short-term business visitors for up to three months in every six months. I regret that the EU has, as far as I know, offered short-term business visitors only up to a three-month stay in a 12-month period, which is rather less generous than the three-month stay in a six-month period which we have offered it.

I am a member of the EU Services Sub-Committee; we wrote in our report on professional and business services—referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—that businesses need clarity on what is allowed while on business trips and how long they can stay. As the City of London Corporation explained in its evidence to the committee, the UK economy relies on the ongoing supply of international talent. The Government need to ensure that this supply continues into 2021 and beyond.

I regret that I cannot support this amendment because it seeks to compel the Government to introduce a mobility framework that would enable all UK and EU citizens to exercise the same reciprocal rights to work for the purpose of trade in services. I am not clear whether the noble Lord is talking about the same rights as have hitherto existed to travel within the single market or if he is simply seeking reciprocal rights on a third-country basis for the UK and the EU, which, as of now, I think the EU has not placed on the table.

As my noble friend Lady Noakes reminded your Lordships, we have left the EU. Some observers think that the EU will continue to use regulatory measures to try to enforce repatriation of capital markets’ business and other financial markets to the eurozone. That would be Europe’s loss and would be resisted by European borrowers in the international markets, particularly as Europe’s share of global markets continues to shrink. It is more important that the UK adopts business mobility rules which guarantee its openness to the world. This will help our services industries retain the world-leading position they hold today. If the EU declines a reciprocal mobility framework, that will be its loss more than ours. I cannot support this amendment.

[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.

--- 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.

Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend that RCEP is a very interesting trade agreement, and it is a notable achievement that it has been concluded. However, we feel that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a significantly deeper agreement that will set standards globally in a large number of areas; that is our priority.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, RCEP is a much shallower and less significant partnership than the CPTPP, as my noble friend just stated. Does he agree that it is hard to see how China could be accepted as a member of the CPTPP, given its provisions on transparency, anti-corruption, state-owned enterprises and labour and environmental protection? Does he also agree that it is very important that UK accession to the CPTPP should be fully agreed during Japan’s presidency, which necessitates a formal request for accession early in the new year?

State Aid (Revocations and Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and welcome them. They are necessary to prepare for the introduction of a UK domestic subsidy control regime. As my noble friend has made clear, the EU state aid rules, which would otherwise have been transposed into UK law, would have been inoperable under the withdrawal Act and, in any case, they would have been redundant.

The Government have made it clear that the UK will follow the WTO’s subsidy rules and will also adhere to any relevant obligations entered into under free trade agreements. Among those obligations are those entered into under the CEPA with Japan. Could the Minister explain what the difference is between the Government’s offer to the EU on state aid, which, I understand, is similar to that included in the EU-Canada free trade agreement, and what has been agreed between the UK and Japan? The Financial Times has reported that the UK-Japan agreement replicates the restrictions on subsidies in the EU-Japan deal that went into effect last year. That agreement prohibits the Governments from indefinitely guaranteeing the debts of struggling companies or providing an open-ended bailout without a clear restructuring plan in place.

Of course, as far as state aid is concerned, the EU should put its own house in order. Accusations of dumping cannot easily be made against the UK. As the Prime Minister said in his inspiring Greenwich speech in February:

“France spends twice as much on state aid as the UK, and Germany three times as much … In fact, the EU has enforced state aid rules against the UK only four times in the last 21 years, compared with 29 enforcement actions against France, 45 against Italy—and 67 against Germany.”


But as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out with her usual forensic acumen, today’s debate is about our domestic state aid rules. In that regard, I do not support the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.

Of course the Government will consult widely on our new domestic subsidy regime, including with the devolved Administrations. I am not quite sure whether creating a statutory requirement to seek the agreement of the devolved Administrations goes further than the requirement to consult, but I am certain that the devolved Administrations will argue that it is tantamount to requiring that their agreement must be given. I would ask the noble Lord if he has not noticed that on every single relevant question the devolved authorities want to do things slightly differently to show their powers. I think the noble Lord’s proposal is, therefore, most unhelpful.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that it is very important that we have a single set of rules across the United Kingdom. The noble Lord’s wish to extend devolved powers to include all those powers until now held by the European institutions for the purpose of harmonising rules across the EU does not fit well with his view that, at the UK level, the UK Government should not reserve the powers necessary to ensure harmonised state aid rules across the United Kingdom. I think I can see some inconsistency in the noble Lord’s position, and I would ask my noble friend the Minister if he agrees.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, have withdrawn from this debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.

Comprehensive Economic Partnership (EUC Report)

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his report and for introducing this debate today. Having spent 11 years living and working in Japan and a considerable additional period on business trips to the country, I am delighted that the UK-Japan CEPA was the first of our EU trade agreements to be rolled over, as an enhanced continuity trade agreement.

I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Darroch of Kew, to the House and congratulate him on his impressive maiden speech. The noble Lord and I gained our first experience of expatriate life in the same city, Tokyo, at the same time, which is interesting. I served under six ambassadors in Japan, including the great Sir Hugh Cortazzi, who perhaps was the one person whose effectiveness inspired me to study Japanese seriously.

The committee’s report is somewhat too grudging in its assessment of what has been achieved in only four months and against the predictions of the naysayers. It is perhaps also too reluctant to give fair credit to the political significance of the agreement against the background of Brexit and the launch of global Britain. Does the Minister also agree that it underestimates the importance of the side letter to CEPA, in which the Government of Japan express their firm determination to support the early accession of the United Kingdom to the CPTPP?

Japanese officials have been encouraging the other 10 members of the CPTPP to understand the benefits of UK accession for some time. The US had persuaded Japan to include significant agricultural quotas in its CPTPP schedules, which are still there after US withdrawal. This is one reason why early UK accession makes a great deal of sense. In addition, Japan believes that early participation by the UK and the workings of the CPTPP will maximise British influence, which will help to ensure that the CPTPP develops as a global beacon and exemplar of the benefits of rules-based free trade, contributing greatly to growing prosperity for many millions across the world.

In May 1998, I was honoured to be allowed to introduce a debate in your Lordships’ House on the state of Anglo-Japanese relations at the time the then Emperor and Empress of Japan arrived for their state visit. At that time, Japanese companies in Britain accounted for 65,000 jobs. Twenty-three years on, the planned state visit by Japan’s new Emperor and Empress has regrettably had to be postponed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. But the number of jobs provided in the UK by Japanese companies has more than doubled, to around 150,000. Since then, trade and investment have grown impressively and the cumulative stock of foreign direct investment from Japan now stands at £128.9 billion.

Cultural and educational exchanges between the two countries have also continued to develop impressively. In 1998, defence co-operation between Japan and Britain amounted to not much more than the provision of courtesy vehicles by Honda and Mitsubishi Motors at the Royal International Air Tattoo. Now, Japan is an increasingly important partner in both defence operations and procurement, all three armed services having conducted exercises with their Japanese counterparts in the last three years. Our Japanese friends had been disturbed by the emphasis placed on the UK’s developing relationship with China and are now relieved that Ministers have stopped talking about the “golden era” of our relationship with that country.

Japan’s soft power on the diplomatic stage has increased dramatically since 1997, particularly during the period in office of Mr Shinzō Abe, who has recently had to stand down for health reasons. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade and her team deserve to be congratulated on the CEPA, but it has also been possible to execute it in such a short timescale as a result of the very positive approach towards Anglo-Japanese co-operation held by the previous Prime Minister, Mr Shinzō Abe and his Government, including his chief Cabinet Secretary, Mr Yoshihide Suga who, of course, has now succeeded Mr Abe as Prime Minister. This augurs well for the continued positive developments in bilateral relations. Given more time, perhaps the agreement might have included an investment protection chapter. Will the Minister tell us whether that could be added later? Does he also agree that the digital and data provisions illustrate well the benefits of being able to diverge from cumbersome EU regulations in that field?

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I again partly apologise to noble Lords because I intended to speak on later amendments and to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, on Amendment 69. I will settle for Amendment 64.

I take exception to the definition of the Long Title from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Whichever way we read it, it is about devolved matters in the United Kingdom. We have only to look at the definition of infrastructure in Clause 42 to see that it absolutely covers devolved matters. His was a bit of a cheap shot at the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to try to imply that this was inconsistent with the Long Title.

My other beef is one I have had in the past regarding Wales and the Barnett formula. I have never understood why the people of Wales, including the politicians, have never risen up. Some years ago I was a member of the Select Committee that looked at the Barnett formula. It was abundantly clear that Wales had been cheated for years. If the Barnett formula was based on need, rather than population, Wales would be on about a third more than it is now. We told leading MPs about this, but I have never noticed any great kickback. Wales has been short-changed under Barnett for years. There is no easy answer to that.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was absolutely bang on in delivering the information from box 3.1 out of the Red Book at the beginning of the debate. I thought his eight questions were incredibly telling. I would use the term “pork barrel”, because that is what it is about. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose Statement I heard earlier, made it quite clear that the spending of this money relied on the consent of the constituency Member of Parliament, although I understand that the Treasury might have disowned this since. I tweeted, saying that it is incredibly dangerous for constituency Members of Parliament to be involved in executive functions. Local councils are always involved in executive functions; Members of the House of Commons are not. It is incredibly dangerous territory for them to get involved in, particularly in view of incidents that arose in the past.

I understand that the Treasury might have backpedalled a little on that, but it shows the thought process of those who constructed the Statement today, which is intricately involved with the Bill: destroy devolution, open up the pork barrel and give money to your friends based on the constituency MP. That cannot be a good form of governance. It cuts across devolution massively, whichever way anyone defines it. I have said before that my experiences have been at Defra and MAFF before devolution, then at the Food Standards Agency, which was a four-nation, non-ministerial department at the time. Whitehall has never really done devolution and never really understood what was happening. It has taken a while even for the House of Commons to become clear about the quite distinct advantages of devolution. It all went wrong, of course, when the proportional electoral system gave a majority Government. That is not supposed to happen, but neither, on the other hand, is first past the post designed to give coalitions, which is what we had in 2010. You cannot base the future construct of the constitution on such whims.

Governments come and go and will not be there for ever, but I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said: with devolution now under acute and very massive threat, there is no question but that this will push the independence movements of Wales and Scotland wider and further, particularly in Scotland, where it is stronger. I cannot see a solution to it. I think that we are heading headlong towards the break-up of the union. I will fight like hell to stop that and a lot of people will. The problem is, keeping the fight in words and debate. We are heading for the destruction of our country, without any policy announcement, a clear vote or a manifesto commitment. It is being done by subterfuge and backhanders.

In my view this is the direct effect of the Bill, particularly these attacks on devolution. Amendment 69 covers the same for Clause 44; they are two sides of the same coin. I was going to speak about Amendment 65, but I will leave that to my noble friend. This fundamental attack on devolution, with the push to break up the United Kingdom, is a much more serious affair than has been recognised by your Lordships’ House, where it has been recognised more than in the House of Commons. We need to send a signal to the elected House that our country, our constitution and the make-up of the union are under direct threat as a result of the Bill.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but I could not disagree with what he said more. The threat to our United Kingdom results from the power grab being attempted by devolved authorities, led by nationalist parties, of powers that were never theirs in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking in support of Amendment 75, and I recognise the constructive intentions behind Amendments 73 and 76. I want to be clear that I have not been persuaded in any way of the case for this Bill. It is wrong in almost every respect, and that is why it has been substantially amended: I think the House takes a similar view. Of course, I have supported amendments that mitigate its worst effects, but I view with growing despair the failure of the Government to grasp just how negative and dangerous is the thrust of this Bill.

The Bill is clearly driven by an ideological and deluded belief that the UK Government can negotiate trade deals more far-reaching and radical than have been achieved within the EU and that, in doing so, they do not wish to allow the existing devolution arrangements to account for any friction in the process. Of course, however, Part 5 of the Bill destroys the negotiating capacity of the Government, who have had no experience of negotiating trade deals in more than 40 years, by advertising in advance their preparedness to set aside unilaterally any agreements that they might sign. The trouble is that the Government seem completely oblivious to the friction that will result from unilaterally overriding decision-making under the devolution settlements.

It has been argued repeatedly that decisions involving the devolved Administrations should be based on seeking agreement. The principles behind the common frameworks have been met with wide support and approval, and I welcome their inclusion in Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. However, there is still a serious lacuna in the process for reaching agreements across the four nations, and Amendment 75 addresses this. The amendment also seeks to utilise the joint ministerial committee, which, in practice, has not been used enough, but which could be an effective means of producing a dispute-resolution process.

The problem at the moment is that the default position leaves it to UK Ministers—who, of course, are also English Ministers—to have the final say. It is not desirable for any one of the four nations to have a veto on achieving agreement. We are quite clear about that. That is why a premium should be placed on seeking agreement wherever possible. Where it is not possible, however, there needs to be a mechanism that is seen to be fair and collaborative and not one-sided. That might involve qualified majority voting, which I have advocated on a number of occasions. However, this amendment proposes not a solution but a mechanism for finding one. My noble friend Lord Purvis, in previous contributions, alluded to the Australian example where the mechanism was unanimously agreed by all the state premiers, but decisions relied on qualified majority voting.

This Bill will do immense damage to the union and to what is left of Britain’s good standing in the world, which this Government seem determined to destroy. Amending it is only damage limitation, but Amendment 75 would go a long way to help. I support it: it is a mechanism by which we can find solutions to disagreements among our four nations that do not allow for veto but do seek consent and will have the support of all the component parts of the union, apart from those who have no desire to maintain it. Many of us want this union to survive and to be effective: this kind of amendment is a way to try to ensure that.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern made some powerful arguments on this subject in Committee. As he said, the UK internal market is not a fixed law, like the law of the Medes and Persians. He made a great contribution, together with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in bringing the common frameworks programme into being in 2017.

I believe that the nationalist-led Administrations in Scotland and Wales, by arguing that powers that have been held by the European Commission in maintaining common frameworks at a European level should not return to Westminster but should be returned to the devolved authorities, are acting against the economic interests of their stakeholders. They might want to increase the powers of the institutions of which they are members, but they do not give enough consideration to the damage to the UK internal market that their power grab threatens to cause.

Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

The noble Lord always speaks on this topic with both expertise and passion. We understand the importance that noble Lords attach to these matters. The Government are studying them actively and carefully.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, it is good that the Government have confirmed that we have the bandwidth to conclude the agreement with Canada in short order. Can the Minister confirm that his department is at the same time discussing with Canada that country’s approach to our possible accession to CPTPP, and can he give a date by which the Government intend to notify CPTPP formally of our intention to accede? Can he confirm that there will be an opportunity to debate our accession before it is applied for?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My noble friend recognises, as I do, the importance of reaching an agreement with Canada. Of course, the agreements that we will reach with Canada, those we hope to reach with Australia and New Zealand and the agreement we have reached with Japan are all vital precursors to fulfilling our ambition to accede to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is a complex matter; there are 11 countries in that partnership, and it will take time to bring all this to the point where the meal can be served, as opposed to just being cooked. Once we get to that point, Parliament will be fully involved.

Common Rules for Exports (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has helpfully explained the purpose of the regulations, and I understand why it is necessary to amend them to replace references to European institutions with references to British ones. It is also welcome that there has been some simplification of the procedure contained in the new legislation. There is no longer a requirement to provide market trends and statistical analysis to the EU and its member states before deciding whether to act on a product shortage. That power now lies with the UK Government, which should lead to swifter intervention when the UK’s interests are affected by product shortages. Could the Minister tell the Committee whether the nature of the market trends and statistical analysis which the Government will require before deciding whether to act will be the same or simpler than that presently required by the Commission?

I understand that export restrictions were placed on PPE exports in spring this year, when shortages first appeared. Could the Minister confirm that the introduction of those restrictions in respect of the UK was triggered by the Commission rather than by the British Government? Could they alternatively have been triggered by a member state Government? Could he also tell us how many times this regulation has been used in respect of British exports since its adoption in 2015?

In researching this measure, I wondered whether my understanding is correct that this SI amends EU regulation 2015/479, which is itself also retained in UK law. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the SI makes “technical amendments” to the retained UK version of the EU regulation. However, the Lexology website states that the SI will “replace” the EU regulation. The two statements are not the same, and I would be grateful if the Minister could say which is correct. I am sure that the same question applies to very many transpositions of EU regulations into UK law, as the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, already referred to.

Of course, the new measures apply only to Great Britain, as the EU regulation will continue to apply in Northern Ireland. Could the Minister confirm that that will be the case whether we enter into a free trade agreement with the EU or not? It is inevitable that UK law and EU law will diverge; if we were to slavishly follow and replicate every change in EU law, there would be no point in our leaving the EU. That is, of course, a wider question, but could the Minister tell the Committee how exports from England which are partly or wholly composed of products manufactured in Northern Ireland will be treated? Can he confirm that the new measures, as they will apply in all parts of the UK, are compatible with the common frameworks proposals? The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has already referred to this subject, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th November 2020 Lords Chamber

For the sake of Britain’s effectiveness in repairing a rules-based international system grievously damaged over the last four years, in addition to all the other powerful arguments that have been advanced this evening, I shall be voting tonight with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, so that Clauses 42 to 47 do not stand part of this Bill.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham in so far as he praised the speech of my noble friend Lord Lilley twice for its pragmatism. Beyond that, I find myself in agreement with my noble friends Lord Lilley, Lady Noakes, Lady Couttie, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Shinkwin and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Fox of Buckley, that this Bill, including Part 5, is indeed necessary.

I salute the Government for their good sense in dealing now with the inconsistencies in the withdrawal agreement. It is regrettable that the inconsistencies were not cleared up at the time of signing that agreement, but it was reasonable to believe that the EU’s negotiators would act in good faith in their efforts to reach an agreement on the future relationship that would have solved most of the inconsistencies. It seems that it remains difficult for Mr Barnier and his team to accept that the UK is becoming a sovereign, independent country and will not accept terms that effectively require us to continue to adhere to EU regulations, especially concerning state aid, nor will it accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the determination of any part of our agreement on our future relationship or any connected enforcement proceedings.

I do not share the strong negative reaction of many noble Lords to the Government’s introduction of this Bill, for the reason that it seeks to disapply certain provisions of the withdrawal agreement signed by the UK and the EU in September 2019. I would argue that entering into the withdrawal agreement without first agreeing the framework for our future relationship with the EU was in itself a breach of Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. Does the Minister agree that it could be argued that the signing of the withdrawal agreement and indeed the subsequent enactment of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 clearly breaches international law?

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, was wise to draft Article 50 as he did. I regret that the European Commission ignored its terms and the previous Government acquiesced in their insistence that agreeing the framework for our future relationship should be deferred. This makes it much more difficult to agree the future relationship, as we are now trying to do with very little time remaining before the end of the implementation period. If we had observed the terms of Article 50, a significant part of the provisions of this Bill, especially those that affect the Northern Ireland protocol, would not have been necessary. Furthermore, David Wolfson QC argues convincingly that the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament means that the Government are bound to proceed with any Act of Parliament even if it should give rise to a claim under an international treaty. Mr Wolfson argues that there would be

“no breach of the rule of law.”

A similar position has been supported by Jolyon Maugham QC, who has argued that parliamentary sovereignty enables Ministers to advise on and recommend, and Parliament to enact, legislation that breaches international law. He observed:

“Whether it is a ‘good idea’ to breach international law”—


by implementing these measures—

is a political judgment”.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that the passage of this Bill in this form risks making the UK “an international pariah”; many noble Lords have expressed a similar view. However, the whole world knows the UK is still negotiating the basis of its exit from the UK. These negotiations continue; in the event that we fail to agree a free trade agreement, it will be well understood that the Government have a duty to ensure that the integrity of the United Kingdom is protected.

I respect the view of noble Lords who think otherwise, including the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, but I just do not believe that the UK’s well-deserved reputation for honouring its word will be negatively affected in any way, any more than the German constitutional court’s ruling on the bond-buying programme of the ECB—that European law which conflicts with the German constitution may be overridden—affects the reputation of the Federal Republic of Germany as a well-behaved international citizen. The decision of the Court of Appeal in 2018 in response to the challenge by the Gulf Centre for Human Rights that ministerial duties in international law were not truly legal duties offers another example of the same point.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and his co-signatories seek to remove all six clauses that constitute Part 5 of the Bill. This would mean that the ambiguities contained in the withdrawal agreement would endure, and the resulting uncertainty arising from the possible erection of a customs border in the Irish Sea would clearly breach the Belfast agreement. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, in his eloquent speech proposing Amendment 161, argued that this Bill would upset and alter the basis of trade within the United Kingdom. I admire the great contribution that he has made, and continues to make, to the peace process. I was impressed by his arguments. However, I noted that he did not acknowledge at all that the Northern Ireland protocol itself upsets and alters the basis of trade in the UK.

I agree strongly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that compliance with the Belfast agreement should be regarded as a part of, and a prerequisite to, the withdrawal agreement. I support Amendments 158 and 159, which would create an additional exclusion from the prohibition imposed by Clause 43, but the reasons for checks following a threat to food or feed safety would be well understood. I understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in Amendments 162 and 163; I sympathise with him. However, other clauses of the Bill already prohibit discrimination against goods produced in any part of the United Kingdom, so his amendments are superfluous. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on these and other measures.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I have read an enormous amount of very learned opinion, produced by many distinguished members of the legal profession, saying that Part 5 of the present Bill does not break international law—enough opinion to be absolutely clear that, however many people claim that the Bill is illegal, serious doubts remain over the claim that Part 5 is illegal, in spite of the many eloquent arguments for that case that have been put forward this evening.

Whatever view you take of Part 5—illegal or legal—there is sufficient doubt over the rights and wrongs that loyalty to one’s country demands that the wishes of the Government should take precedence over other views. The House should not get in the way of a Bill that will be of invaluable assistance to strengthen the hands of our negotiators in these last crucial days and weeks of the negotiations. The Bill will not make this country some kind of pariah, nor will we lose respect, as some have falsely claimed. The world will see it simply as part of us leaving the European Union.

It is not the role of this House to overturn the wishes of the other place, especially where the grounds for such action, as today, are not clear-cut. Furthermore, the other place has conceded that there must be a vote in Parliament before Part 5 is acted on. The ultimate authority in this country is the Queen in Parliament. It is what the British people have voted for, and we must do everything possible to ensure that this remains the case.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I pay my respects to the memory of Lord Sacks. His loss is immeasurable, and I am sure he would have contributed enormously this evening.

I have put my name to the proposal of my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd that Clause 50 should not stand part of the Bill for a number of reasons. First, the clause is in direct contradiction to Ministers’ assertions that the Bill does nothing to remove powers from the Senedd. If that is the case, why is a new reservation necessary?

Secondly, and related to this, is the conundrum that the Government insist that state aid is already reserved. This position has long been strongly contested by the devolved Governments, who have always operated the state aid system, as the UK Government do in England. If there is doubt about the current legal disposition, would it not be better to ask the courts to interpret the meaning of the current reservation and whether it does or does not include state aid?

Thirdly, although I am no expert, I understand that the Government have been resisting pressure from the European Union during the still-ongoing negotiations to keep in place a state aid framework broadly similar to the one we have inherited through our membership of the EU. Indeed, the statutory instrument to revoke all state aid law is before this House. Why are a Government that seem so reluctant to commit to a rules-based system also so eager to take to themselves absolute power on this vital area of economic development policy?

The devolved Governments in Cardiff and Edinburgh are both in favour of retaining this framework in retained EU law. It is a clear system that provides a bulwark against the arbitrary use of public subsidies to support businesses in favour with the Government or to attract investment, something that is a real risk. Having the protection that this current situation affords for the Governments of the smaller nations of these islands is important because, at the end of the day, the UK Government in their “Government of England” mode can always trump any financial incentives that the devolved Administrations could offer in some kind of dog-eat-dog contest. This clause simply feeds the suspicion that, rather than maintaining a level playing field across the UK, this element of the Bill is about giving the Government the maximum freedom to do what they like with the system and channel investment to marginal Conservative seats.

Fourthly, it is probable that, despite their effort, the Government do indeed sign up to an agreement with the EU that requires the enhancement of a new system of state aid. I hope that the term “subsidy control” evaporates in the way the “implementation period” seems to. If that is the case, then the devolved institutions will have to conform to those new rules because they flow from an international treaty obligation, so this new reservation will be unnecessary.

Finally, I turn to what this clause, like so much else about this Bill, says about the Government’s approach to devolution. Quite simply, it would seem that they do not like it, would prefer it not to exist and want simply to pay lip-service to it. This is a Government that do not seem to tolerate any source of law and public policy that they cannot control and, having removed the rival source of authority of the EU, seem to be gunning for other bodies that have the power to make primary legislation. This is not just distasteful; it is profoundly dangerous for those of us who care deeply about the union. I appeal to the Government to rethink their approach urgently because, otherwise, they will see the country gradually disintegrate in front of their eyes.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]]

My Lords, when I read the three amendments of my noble friend Lady Rawlings, I was not sure exactly what had driven her to propose them. Of course, I am aware that my noble friend is a distinguished former chairman of King's College London and, therefore, well aware of the importance of research and development grants. I recognise the importance of regulating the provision by public authorities of subsidies that may be distorting or harmful.

I had thought that Clause 49 makes it clear that financial assistance for economic development may be provided in a number of forms, including grants. However, I sympathise with my noble friend’s view, which she clearly explained in her impressive speech, that R&D grants should be incorporated to safeguard against unfair state aid masquerading as legitimate subsidies. I would like to hear the opinion of my noble friend the Minister on this question.

Regarding the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that Clause 50 should not stand part of the Bill, although I have the greatest respect for his opinions and was impressed by his characteristically clear explanation of his reasons, I believe it is still necessary for this clause to protect against the undesirable possibility that the devolved authorities might otherwise adopt significantly different regulations on this. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say about this amendment and the need for a single nationwide state aid regime.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committee (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Neville-Rolfe, have withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

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

[Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I too would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and my noble friend Lord Sarfraz on their excellent maiden speeches. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing this Bill under fire, so to speak. It builds upon the common frameworks approach to which the UK Government and the devolved authorities are sensibly committed in order to preserve the status quo of intra-UK free trade.

At the time of devolution for Scotland in 1997 and Wales in 1999, the United Kingdom Parliament was free only to devolve those parts of legislative competence that it, as a member state, still retained. High-level principles and frameworks in many areas had already been transferred by the member states to the union. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are now disingenuously arguing that responsibility for these high-level principles and frameworks should be transferred from Brussels to Edinburgh and Cardiff. Does my noble friend agree with the arguments advanced by Nick Timothy in his article in today’s Daily Telegraph entitled “Devolution is a Mess That Fails the Public and Endangers the Union”?

As I am not a lawyer, I should not presume to enter into discussion of the finer legal points. However, I would ask my noble friend if he agrees that the EU and the UK had already broken international law when they signed the withdrawal agreement in October 2019 because it was a breach of the conditions of the Lisbon treaty. According to the website of the European Union, Article 50 provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement between the EU and the withdrawing state, defining in particular the latter’s future relationship with the union. The wording of the article itself refers to negotiation with the withdrawing state, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the union. However, that did not happen.

I do not think for one moment that the UK’s international reputation as a country that upholds the rule of law is placed at risk by this Bill. I believe the conclusion of the Bingham Centre—that this Bill has serious implications for the rule of law—is based on a narrow legal interpretation of the facts, ignoring the refusal of the EU to negotiate Article 50 and our withdrawal in accordance with the treaty provisions. Our acquiescence to the EU’s demands for the two-stage negotiation was surely predictably going to lead to the present impasse. The world knows that the UK is still negotiating to leave the EU. To suggest that our trade partners will be shocked or surprised by this turn of events is not true. Indeed, the Prime Minister has always been clear and consistent that we want a Canada-style trade agreement and that we will not agree to an internal border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, dividing the United Kingdom customs territory in two.

I have the highest regard for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, but I would ask him if he knows why the EU and the learned lawyers of the Bingham Centre have remained silent and expressed no outrage at the finding of the German constitutional court that the ECJ exceeded its powers in its recent approval of the ECB’s public sector purchasing programme. I would also ask him if he thinks that Lord Diplock was right in 1964 in defending the sovereign right of the Crown to change its policy. The Crown needs the flexibility to use its sovereign rights as much as ever today, which should help it reach an 11th-hour agreement with the EU in the interests of all our citizens.

Trade Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I want to comment on three amendments in this group. First, on Amendment 81, I will echo some of what my noble friend Lord Lansley has said. As I understand it, the Board of Trade is composed only of privy counsellors, and I believe they are normally Cabinet Ministers. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, read out its full title, and I think embedded in there is “privy counsellor”. It would be wholly inappropriate for Parliament ever to be involved in the appointment of privy counsellors to a body.

As we have heard, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, what people are really upset about is the appointment of Tony Abbott. But he is, of course, an adviser to the Board of Trade, and I do not think there is any precedent for Parliament to be involved in the appointment of advisors or for the normal public appointment processes to apply necessarily to advisers. So I would not support Amendment 81 at all.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, has said most of what I wanted to say in respect of Amendment 106. I would like to underscore that I do not think that boards of bodies such as the TRA should have representatives on them. The board is a place where the governance of the body is played out, which is why there is a majority, under the schedule, of non-executives. It is important to remember that it is not there to bring a particular point of view, but to make sure that the body is itself well managed and well governed. The issue about bringing stakeholder interests to bear should be covered either by committees —whether we need a special committee to be hard-wired into the schedule or the TRA can use its committee power in the schedule—or, more probably, by ensuring that there are proper mechanisms for consultation in the formulation of any policy. I do not believe we should be using the board in that way. I also note in passing that the representatives are to include each of the United Kingdom devolved Administrations, which leaves England out in the cold. There is no representation for England, which is often one of the failings of devolution—having representatives from the devolved Administrations but forgetting that England is also rather important.

Lastly, Amendment 107 would require the House of Commons, via its International Trade Committee, to consent to the appointment of non-executives to the body. Again, this is unprecedented. It is normal nowadays—although it used not to be—for the chairman to be put through a process, either pre or post-appointment, but I do not think that there is any precedent for the Commons to start approving individual members of public bodies. It is unnecessary and cumbersome to clog up committees by getting involved in the many kinds of individual appointments that are made to public bodies.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the other two proposers of Amendment 81, which seeks to restrict appointments to the Board of Trade. As my noble friend Lady Noakes has pointed out, I think that he intended his amendment to apply to advisers to the Board of Trade. It must be most discouraging for new appointees as advisers to the Board of Trade to hear the criticism of their suitability. I agree with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the new Board of Trade should be well advised by experienced people who can make the case for free and fair trade across the UK and around the world. I am happy to see that Tony Abbott, Daniel Hannan and others have been appointed, and I disagree with those who say that people who hold different views on social issues unconnected with trade should not be appointed to such positions. There is, at the present time, great global insecurity as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. More than ever, the UK needs to be a strong voice for open markets and for reshaping global trading rules, together with countries such as Australia, with which we expect to soon agree on the terms of a new free trade agreement.

In response to the suggestion that appointments to the Board of Trade should be made subject to the Governance Code on Public Appointments, I would say that perhaps the governance code is too restrictive and generally leads to the selection of a particular type of person, excluding those who are able to think outside the box and suggest innovative solutions, rather than those who resist change to practices that will not work well for global Britain in future.

Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, seeks to increase the influence of trade unions over the trade advisory groups. This amendment is also unnecessarily prescriptive, especially as there are representatives of each of the four nations’ national farmers unions on the Trade and Agriculture Commission beside the representative of the Farmers’ Union of Wales. Besides, the further attack on the Government’s prerogative powers on treaty negotiations by exposing day-to-day salient developments in trade negotiations to public scrutiny would seriously detract from our negotiators’ ability to represent British interests successfully.

Amendment 106, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, also unreasonably seeks to restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to appoint the board of the Trade Remedies Authority. It is notable that the noble Lord does not think it so important to include people with experience of international trade disputes and business as he does representatives of his four chosen categories. I tend to agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, said in this regard. However, I suggest to the Minister that it would be better if the chief executive and both executive and non-executive directors were appointed by the chairman with the approval of the Secretary of State. This would result in better corporate governance and lead to smoother functioning of the board.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that her Amendments 110 and 111 would be improvements to the Bill. I agree with the intention of her Amendment 112, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley, in his Amendment 113, that the annual report should be as informative as appropriate. Perhaps the Minister could suggest some suitable amendments to that effect, even if he considers these particular amendments to be too prescriptive.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I shall now try and call the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Are you there, Lord Judd?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the creeping power of HMRC to demand information, potentially from anyone, without any controls or supervision. I am a member of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee, and this is a matter that we, too, are investigating in our current inquiry.

Here in the Bill there is another swathe of powers, or potential powers. I am not against powers to investigate or to make sure that any taxes due are properly paid; the problem comes with generalised powers that can then be used beyond what might be called their proper limit, or exercised by individuals at relatively junior level without appropriate training. We have seen that before. HMRC also has a track record of being rather heavy-handed on innocent or easy victims—as with the loan charge—and missing the big fish.

Against that background, Clause 7 is drawn too wide. Clause 7(1), which kicks off the provision, is worded to cover any person. It is not limited to whether they have an interest or are connected in any way with the trade, business or profession. It could enable fishing anywhere—and potentially compulsorily under regulations made via Clause 7(3). Clause 7(3) also seeks to be able to amend Acts of Parliament on the type of information required and how the request is to be made, again without limitations. If it follows HMRC’s present trend, that could include seeking the disclosure of information that would normally require the approval of a court. I expect that that is intended, as it is in the current Finance Bill. That is already unacceptable, but at least it is in a Bill; it would become even more unacceptable were it done by regulation.

Once HMRC had got such information, Clause 8 would permit it to allow the onward disclosure of that information—again, at HMRC’s own discretion—which should not be allowed, and most certainly not in blanket form.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 84 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, which she moved so eloquently. Like her, I am a strong supporter of the Government’s trade policies, but I share her wariness about the Bill’s powers to require disclosure of information. I believe that it is not the kind of thing a Conservative Government should do, in so far as those powers go beyond what is absolutely necessary.

I also agree with my noble friend’s Amendment 87, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to explain exactly which other functions the Government had in mind when they drafted the rather convoluted language of subsection (2). I also agree with my noble friend’s Amendment 88. Why does the Minister think that HMRC should have the power to disclose what may well be sensitive information, the disclosure of which might have an anti-competitive effect?

I also have some sympathy with Amendment 85 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. Can the Minister explain in what circumstances he thinks it would be necessary and reasonable to use this Henry VIII power?

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her Amendment 84 in this group, as it gives the Committee the opportunity to examine again the powers being taken by the Government and their agencies in the Bill and whether they are being drafted too widely. The noble Baroness asked some very pertinent questions about the powers being given by the Government to HM Revenue and Customs, not only regarding the compulsion with which any person must comply and the comments made in the other place but on whether this will become a general trawl for all sorts of commercially sensitive data. Under Clause 7(3)(a), regulations may be drawn rather more widely than is considered appropriate.

I will speak to Amendment 85, in the name of my noble friend, Lord Bassam of Brighton, which raises the issue that secondary legislation does not and should not have the power to change primary legislation. Clause 7(4) does this, “among other things”. Paragraph 71 of the Explanatory Memorandum explains that this power is needed to make amendments to the tax primary legislation in order to allow tax returns

“to be amended to include the request for exporter information.”

This probably brings us back to Amendment 84 and compulsion. Would it be an offence to mark the question “not appropriate”? When the words “among other things” are used, how far does that go? If the power is necessary, surely it can be made quite simply in the next Finance Act, maintaining constitutional propriety.

As this is a probing amendment, there is no need to press the point regarding Clause 7(5). Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not draw anything in the Trade Bill to our attention, although the Constitution Select Committee discussed the Bill at length in its 15th report. While that committee focused primarily on the Trade Remedies Authority and the devolved Administrations, it drew attention in general to the Government taking presumptive rather than explicit powers. It did not specifically draw attention here to Clause 7, even though powers over taxation have a long history. The Committee needs to seek further clarification and detail on the exporter information being requested in the clause. Can the Minister clarify whether this will be purely financial and whether any guidance on the matter will be published? Could not this information be acquired in a separate request, apart from a person’s tax return? Clause 7(1) seems to suggest that the information required is merely to establish the number and identity of exporters. Is this heavy-handed approach therefore appropriate? I suggest that the information sought goes somewhat wider than that.

The noble Baroness’s Amendments 87 and 88 return to the extent and the wide-ranging nature of the powers. Other speakers in this group have outlined the importance of data to companies. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, confirmed that data can and does go astray. In a later group we will discuss wrongful disclosure. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, spoke against allowing disclosure to be wholly at the Government’s discretion. There are some serious questions here, and I await the Minister’s further comments.