Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Davies of Brixton

Report stage
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I happily added my name to Amendment 11, but I will focus on my Amendment 9. The common theme through these amendments is of raising concerns about possible issues arising from a trade agreement. We are all free- traders now, but there is a recognition that free trade should be respectful of the limits that we and other countries set to protect labour standards, the environment, food quality and so on. There is a balance to be achieved and this series of amendments raises issues of concern.

These amendments are all limited, because the Bill is limited. It is not the treaty, but just the administrative arrangements required to implement it, so it could not achieve a lot anyway. We are asking the Government to review these issues. I hope that they are of sufficient importance that they would be studied, in any event. It is possible that we do not need these amendments, as a good Government would review these issues, but they provide us with the opportunity to point out areas of concern.

My Amendment 9 concerns investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. The investment chapter of the CPTPP contains these arrangements and allows companies to sue Governments over decisions to implement policies that impact their corporate profits, even when these decisions were made in the public interest. We debated this in Committee, and I am sorry to say that I found the Minister’s reply to our concerns less than reassuring. Referring to these arrangements, he said that that they do not

“derogate or hinder our right to regulate in the public interest, including in areas such as the environment and labour standards”.

Referring explicitly to the CPTPP, he also said that it

“preserves states’ rights to regulate proportionately, fairly and in the public interest”.—[Official Report, 14/12/23; col. GC 375.]

That sounds fine.

The International Bar Association has a similar view, stating that,

“while investment treaties limit states’ ability to inflict arbitrary or discriminatory treatment, they do not limit (and, in fact, expressly safeguard) a state’s sovereign right to regulate in the public interest in a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory manner”.

The problem is that these phrases, “arbitrary or discriminatory treatment” and a

“fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory manner”,

are doing a lot of heavy lifting. They are all subject to interpretation. There have been real concerns that, in practice, commercial interests will be elevated above those of the public. There is so much there that needs to be taken on trust. The key point is that this clearly—and, I suggest, inarguably—is an issue that needs to be kept under close review, which my amendment does.

The problem we face is that ISDS arrangements have been used to challenge health provision, labour rights and other important regulations. This is not a theoretical possibility; there have been enough examples in practice to give rise to this concern. I quoted the CBI in Committee and it is worth expressing its views again—that there is

“a risk of the UK becoming disproportionately targeted through ISDS”,

and that

“there could also be environmental implications of the UK being exposed to the ISDS mechanism”.

These are not fringe concerns but concerns of different interest groups.

In simple terms, the ISDS arrangements make it possible for firms to sue Governments for measures that harm their profits. The existence of this power has a chilling effect on regulations, particularly those designed to combat climate change.

A specific example, of which we need some account, is the attitude to the energy charter treaty, under which many cases have been brought by western companies taking action against Governments to limit their use and expansion of fossil fuels. So problematic has this become that large European countries have signalled their intention to exit from this treaty. The Government themselves have said that they are reviewing their energy charter treaty membership and

“will carefully consider the views of stakeholders”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/9/23; col. 4WS.]

Given the dawning realisation that these sorts of clauses are an impediment to climate action and to sovereign policy-making in general, it seems wrong for us to sign up to further restrictions through this treaty. I am amazed by the modesty of the demand that this aspect of the CPTPP should be subject to a formal review so that we can see what impact it is having on government corporate relations.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to Amendment 10 in my name, which is in similar terms to the amendment I tabled in Committee and requests

“an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP Chapter on government procurement on environmental protection and animal welfare, health and hygiene”.

I am grateful to my noble friend for trying to seek me out. I missed him yesterday and he missed me today. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and a number of others, we were paying tribute at the memorial to an outstanding parliamentarian, Baroness Boothroyd. I am sorry that I missed my noble friend’s attempt to speak to me, but I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to him in the confines of these deliberations.

What has changed very clearly since Committee stage is that an announcement was made by the Environment Secretary at the Oxford Farming Conference that the Government are committing to consult on new food labelling—plans that will ensure that British produce will, as he put it,

“stand out from the crowd”.

The idea is to allow changes to food labelling entitling consumers to make better decisions at the supermarket in particular, while also highlighting high-quality British produce to the public. I quote from the press release issued by the NFU, which quotes what my right honourable friend Steve Barclay said:

“New food labelling would also make it clearer when imported products do not meet the same UK welfare standards”.


I put it to my noble friend: would it not be better if we did not import food that does not meet the high UK animal welfare and environmental standards that consumers demand and our domestic producers are honoured and delighted to meet? What is the relationship between this new labelling scheme and the Red Tractor scheme, which already demonstrates compliance with all the food requirements by domestic producers?

Is it not a fact, and does my noble friend not agree, that domestic producers meet the highest standards of animal welfare and environmental protection in their production? This means they are meeting a higher standard and it is therefore more expensive to produce. This is exactly what happened in the 1990s with the decision to unilaterally ban sow stalls and tethers in the production of pigmeat while we continued to import pork produced by sow stalls and tethers for an interim period of seven years. This meant the consumer swapped high-end, high-quality, high-animal-welfare-standard UK pig production with lower, cheaper, substandard imports. After seven years, this put our pig producers out of business.

I hope my noble friend will give me his assurance today that after six months—or 12 months in the terms of my Amendment 10—an assessment will be undertaken by his department, jointly with Defra, to ensure that the trade Bill before us this evening does not discriminate against UK domestic production, particularly of meat and dairy. In addition, can he give an assurance that the food labelling provisions that Defra is proposing to consult on, and which I support, will apply not just to supermarket labelling but will somehow translate on to the food menus for food sourced from third countries in our restaurants, bars and cafés in this country? That is the main purport lying behind Amendment 10.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Davies of Brixton

Committee stage
Wednesday 6th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not going to intervene in this debate, and my questions are effectively procedural. As I understand it, these amendments are to Schedule 2, although according to the Marshalled List, Schedule 2 has already been debated. We also have the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which made a number of trenchant criticisms of the contents of the Bill, including a provision in Schedule 2. Where and how do the Government respond to the points raised by the committee and where and how should we, as members of this Committee, raise the issues that were raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee? As my noble friend said, we have a mountain of paper here, and quite rightly we have been focused on all these government amendments, but I do not want the issues raised to pass by default. Does the Minister respond and, if so, when?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I would like my noble friend to respond to a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on Monday, which is pertinent to the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just now. I am confused about whether paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 relates to military contracts only. I think that was the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on Monday, and I do not know that we got a satisfactory answer. I am very confused about whether paragraphs 19 and 20 of Schedule 2 should be read together with paragraph 26. I think I am right that, on Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised whether the international agreements under paragraphs 19 and 20 relate to defence contracts only or whether they are more general.

Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Davies of Brixton

Monday 28th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I could not resist coming to this debate. It is akin to social policy archaeology. I very much thank the Minister for her clear, straightforward and unarguable introduction. In fact, she addressed the two points which I was going to raise. She mentioned that this was small—a word she used two or three times—and my first question was, “How small?” She came up with the pretty broad figures of 250 to 1,000. This sounds a bit vague. I have seen another figure elsewhere of 200, so it is certainly of that order. I do not know whether the officials can tell us, but do we simply not know because there are so few that they do not get picked up in the sample survey which is undertaken? As the Minister said, it is relatively unusual.

The second question I had was: why are we getting this too late? It leaves us with the suspicion that someone forgot it and was desperately trying to make it up before the deadline.

My final point is that women who chose the married women’s option probably got a poor deal. I have always been surprised that this has not been pursued. You only need to reflect on the level of attention which was given to the increase in the women’s retirement age issue. In some ways, it could be argued that the women who opted for the married women’s option have had an equally bad deal. If you actually look at their contributions, they have paid as much as someone who is contracted out of the state earnings-related scheme, yet the latter group has been treated very much better. However, we have a Treasury team on this occasion, so maybe this is something I need to take up with the DWP.

With those few remarks, I thank the Minister. I will not be objecting to the regulations.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the regulations before us this afternoon. I spent a year in the other place shadowing the Department for Work and Pensions, with specific responsibility for women’s pensions at the time. However, it was a source of some disappointment. I spent that year trying to look at ways in which women’s pensions could be improved, if ever the opportunity arose for us to come into government—which then happened in 2010—so we would actually do something to improve the lot of women’s pensions. Therefore, it was a huge blow to me when we kept what a previous Labour Government had decided, with WASPI, that women’s eligibility for state pension would rise to the age of 65 and then 66 in subsequent years without, at the time, giving women 10 years to prepare. That was a matter of regret to me. I would have welcomed if, for once, women were unfairly disadvantaged in this case, if we had not passed—or if we were not to pass—the regulations before us this afternoon. However, that is not my intention.

I think it was our noble friend Lady Morrissey, who is very experienced in financial matters, who flagged this up to us after the Spring Statement in a tweet—which I now cannot find, unfortunately—alerting us to the fact that, as my noble friend set out today, the national insurance threshold is going up to £12,570. The point that our noble friend Lady Morrissey made was that we have to be very careful to ensure that working women are not left out of being able to contribute to their pension and of having their employers contribute at that time. I ask my noble friend to assure us that that, as was so astutely flagged up by our noble friend Lady Morrissey, is not going to be the case.

We are told that this is going to raise a sizeable amount of money—£12 billion, I think—and I assume my noble friend will explain that that is the total amount that the increase in national insurance contributions to which the Government are committed through the health and social care levy will deliver. My noble friend said that the regulations have been produced at speed. We recognise the great burden that has been placed on her department, but can she assure us that there are no errors in this albeit small statutory instrument? Just about every statutory instrument I have debated over the past two to three weeks has contained an error of some sort.

Finally, I ask for confirmation that the rate applying to men in the same bracket will be in the same order—the increase of 1.25% in this regard—or were men already paying a higher rate?

It is my understanding that many working women have lost their jobs through the Covid pandemic, particularly those in retail positions, in shops especially, as opposed to online and others. I would like to pause for a moment and acknowledge what a difficult time those women will be having at the moment, given the pressures if there is only one income coming into a family or if they are in the unfortunate position of being a single mother.

With those few questions, I support the regulations before us.

Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Davies of Brixton

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of a profession, as listed in the register of interests. I support Amendment 63, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter. It is entirely reasonable that it should be clear to which professions this legislation should apply—in addition to architects, who get their own bit in the Bill—so I commend my noble friend’s diligent work.

However, I have a question about what counts as a regulated profession. I know this issue comes up under Clause 16, but it is clearly important in the context of the amendment. Clause 16 tells us that

“‘regulated profession’ means a profession that is regulated by law in the United Kingdom”

and draws our attention to Clause 16(3), which says:

“For the purposes of this Act, a profession is regulated by law in the United Kingdom … if by reason of legislation … individuals are entitled to practise the profession in the United Kingdom … or … individuals are entitled to practise the profession in the United Kingdom, or in that part of it, only if … they have certain qualifications or experience, or … they meet an alternative condition or requirement.”


All that tells us, in effect, is that a regulated profession is a profession that is regulated by law. I find this difficult without a comprehensive index of all the legislation that might be caught by that definition, particularly given the open-ended Clause 16(3)(b)(ii) at the end about meeting

“an alternative condition or requirement”.

So this question is relevant to the amendment. Could the Minister tell us a bit more about what is envisaged might be covered by that part of the definition?

Let us start from the other end. What professions might be covered by the Bill and is there a useful definition that covers them? My noble friend Lady Hayter has helpfully provided us all with a list. The list is interesting in itself, making clear the extraordinary hodge-podge nature of the Bill. Clearly, it is not a list based on a rational assessment of the needs for legal recognition; it is probably a combination of historical accidents. My question is: how do I, other noble Lords and, most relevant, the Government really know which professions are covered by the Bill, given the breadth of the requirement to meet an “alternative condition or requirement”?

How do we know there is not buried somewhere in past legislation a condition or requirement that applies before an individual can practise their profession? I mentioned this issue at Second Reading. Here is an example: there are requirements in the legislation covering both pensions and life insurance that an actuary can sign off on certain statutory reports only if they have been approved by the relevant government Minister—invariably, the Secretary of State. Does that count as regulation? If so, should various Secretaries of State be included in the list of regulators? Perhaps the Minister could address this issue. I do not ambitiously expect an immediate response, but a considered response would be helpful.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I support my noble friend Lady Noakes in her two amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in her Amendments 63 and 68. The first list that I saw was the one produced informally by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which I was delighted to see and took as gospel. Now we have had two or three iterations of it. While that may cause us some confusion and bemusement, one has to look to the professions and the regulators that are required to regulate them. I start from a simple premise: I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. I understand what the faculty does, along with the corresponding regulator in England and the Law Society of Scotland—that is, the regulators for their respective professions.

I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has leapt to the cause that I supported on the question of why pig farmers were chosen for special treatment under the Bill. If I may pause on the completeness of the list, I am not even sure that all the professions listed on pages 20 and 21 of the impact assessment—which I know the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, thinks is no longer entirely up to date—are covered in the new list. It is difficult to see whether

“Chief engineer class I fishing vessel”

and

“Deck officer class II fishing vessel”

have simply been renamed in the list that we received on Sunday afternoon or whether they are the same in the impact assessment and the latest letter. What causes me some concern and confusion, in the light of the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is the foot- note to table 4 on page 20 of the impact assessment:

“European Commissions’ Regulated Professions Database. It should be noted that recognition decisions are captured at the generic profession level and not the specific profession level. Some generic professions listed may therefore include specific professions which do have alternate routes and/or which may be likely to be included in the new framework. This table is therefore likely to overstate the recognition decision numbers of the specific professions without alternate routes and which are not likely to be included in the new framework.”


Now I am even more confused than before.

In the light of the forensic work that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis has done in this regard, I am still not entirely convinced as to why pig farmers are included, and producers of chickens for meat production only are included. Does that mean that overseeing egg-producing chickens is not deemed to be a profession and is therefore not regulated for the purposes of the Bill? I go back to what I said when this issue was first raised on the second day of Committee: could my noble friend please state the legal basis for including pig farmers? Has it been correctly identified by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis? I would like to understand, when I meet them at Thirsk auction mart, whether they are included or not. Are egg-producing chickens included or only those for meat production? Perhaps more importantly, on what basis are beef and lamb producers and producers of chickens for other purposes not included? Is that a permanent exclusion or could it be revisited, and might they be included at a later date?

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, was being very restrained when he said that this is an unsatisfactory situation. We have to accept that the Bill before us is perhaps not fit for purpose and that we need to do other work on it. I do not think that, hand on heart, we can allow it to go forward to Report and eventually leave the House in this form, because we would not be serving well the professions or indeed their regulators if we did. So I support Amendments 45, 46, 63 and 68 and particularly the call from my noble friend Lady Noakes to pause the legislation at this stage so that we can do the work that, undoubtedly, my noble friend and his department would be delighted to do.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Davies of Brixton

Committee stage & Lords Hansard
Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate. We both sit on the rural action group of the Church of England. I should also declare that as a Bar apprentice in Edinburgh, one of my first duties was as a debt collector. I cannot claim that I had any particular training in that regard, and I was probably the least sympathetic at the time, given my youth and inexperience. I therefore congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the research that she has carried out in preparing for the amendment and bringing it forward. I also thank the Reset The Debt campaign for what they have achieved, as well as the Church Action on Poverty campaign in bringing these issues to the fore.

It may be that my noble friend the Minister is not minded to look sympathetically on the amendment but, at the very least, I ask him whether he accepts that there is a problem that needs to be addressed in this regard, for the simple reason that there will be an uplift in council tax of some 5% in some areas. It would also seem that, as yet, we have failed to address the issue of zero-hour contracts, which remains vexatious.

In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to food banks. My experience is not that recent but occurred between 2010 and 2015, when I had cause to visit them in my area. What impressed me most is that it was often not people on benefits who used them but those in work but who did not work sufficient hours to make ends meet. This is a category of people to whom we owe something, and is an issue that should be addressed.

In particular, I ask my noble friend what instruction is given to IVAs and others that administer debt relief orders on the power they have to be more sympathetic to and imaginative about the circumstances in which debtors find themselves. Given the rather modest remit set out in Amendment 55, I hope that my noble friend might look at it fairly sympathetically. If he feels unable to support it, perhaps he will bring forward something along these lines at the next stage.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]]

I want to say a few words at this late hour strongly in favour of Amendment 55 and mention the possibility of a wider-ranging debt jubilee. There is clearly a case for this amendment, and the same case can be made for a wider-ranging approach to relieving the burden that debt places on us all, not just on the individuals. Clearly it ruins lives and leads to much misery, but it also affects the rest of us: it acts as a drag on the economy and the recovery that we now so desperately need. Anything that we as a society can do to relieve the absolute burden of debt, the better.

The proposal in the amendment for a fair debt write-down is a welcome development to the debt relief scheme. The moral case for passing on some of the discount that currently goes to debt collection agencies is clear, and there is an advantage to the Treasury. The same case fundamentally applies to us as a whole. We need a more comprehensive package of debt cancellations, targeted at the household sector. We want a way of writing off debts, just as so many debts were written off in the financial sector 12 or 13 years ago. We were told then that some banks were too big to fail, because of the harm it would cause the economy. I argue that the challenges facing individuals, because of their debt, mean as much or even greater harm for us all.

The main argument today is that such a scheme, as well as relieving much individual misery, would provide a direct, targeted macroeconomic boost to the economy, exactly where it is needed, helping some of the most hard-up in our society. It will boost economic growth, and help those who have fallen into the misery of debt—and all of us.