Trade Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Earl, because of his dogged approach on this issue, not only on this Bill but on the predecessor Bill and the Agriculture Bill. I commend him on his work and I will be referring to some of the points he raised, because I was reflecting on them as he spoke.

I shall primarily address Amendments 43 and 44, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Kramer, and also reflect on what I thought was a very comprehensive speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and some of the points he raised within it. I have supported Amendment 91 in his name. This was raised at Second Reading by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, on the way he introduced this group and on allowing us to have this important debate: it is extremely important for the Bill and for UK trade going forward.

The Minister said, in summing up on Second Reading:

“ISDS is a subject which often causes excitement … I confirm that ISDS tribunals can never overrule the sovereignty of Parliament … There has never been a successful ISDS claim against the United Kingdom, but our investors operating overseas have often benefited from these agreements”.—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. 749.]


I do not know about “excitement”, but there is genuine concern, which primarily comes down to two areas. One is that it is not clear yet what the Government’s position is on the agreements that are yet to be made, which will be continuity agreements, primarily with Vietnam, Canada, Singapore and Mexico, where, as we have heard in this debate, the European Union agreements have moved beyond ISDS. Can the Minister confirm that, in our negotiations with them, we will have follow-on from the European Union position? The second area of concern is what the Government’s position will be in the longer term. Are we moving away from the position we held when we were in the EU and towards a multilateral system?

I think it is helpful to remember the scale of this issue. It is not a minor issue. Across the European Union member states, more than 1,300 investment treaties have been signed with third countries, in addition to some 200 between EU member states. Non-EU states within Europe are party to more than 500, and we will now be in this category. This is just part of the 3,000 that exist worldwide. Most of these include ISDS provisions and often, as we have heard from UNCTAD—I shall refer to UNCTAD in a moment—it is very clear from the annual reports on the use of ISDS that companies have a view that public policy choices made by Governments will have an impact on their profits, and therefore they will use that ISDS.

The Minister seemed to suggest that the Government are in favour of ISDS because it disproportionately benefits British investors around the world. Statistically, that is true about the use of ISDS, so UNCTAD’s data is interesting. The United Kingdom is the third-highest home state of claimants of ISDS around the world. From 1987 to 2018, in the number of known cases, the UK was third, with 78. As the respondent state, we have had only one. So there have been 78 where we have been the home state and one where we have been the respondent state—so, on one reading, the Minister could be correct that this has been of benefit to British-based operations. But a bit more analysis is required as to what “British-based” means when it comes to some of the commercial operations, and where some of those cases have primarily concerned developing countries.

On the second aspect, it was helpful that the noble Earl raised some of the consequences of Covid-19, because it is not just America lining up. We have had reports that law firms have been studying decisions made by British authorities, including the London Mayor’s decision to close Crossrail construction during the pandemic, during the lockdown. While this was not underpinned by a statutory requirement, it is potentially vulnerable to those seeking compensation under the investment treaty. Will the Minister respond to the noble Earl’s question on how vulnerable the UK is at the moment?

The issue moving forward, as my noble friend Lady Kramer indicated, is that the EU has ratified four agreements with an ISDS mechanism: the Energy Charter Treaty, to which 53 European and central Asian countries are party; CETA, with Canada; and agreements with Vietnam and Singapore. Only the ECT is fully in force; the ISDS provisions in the three others will be implemented after all member states have ratified them. More importantly, those agreements include investment court systems and, last year, the Commission presented procedural proposals for the more transparent ICS for CETA. Can the Minister say what approach we will be adopting in our discussions with Canada? Are we seeking, in our agreement with Canada, an investment court system? These new transparent approaches will allow for mediation, which ISDS has largely overlooked, and an appeal mechanism that will then be binding on the parties. All of this has a public interest test, because they are party to the agreements with regards to the making of public policy, so what is our position on Canada, Vietnam, Singapore and Mexico?

It would, for many, be a fully retrograde step if we were not to seek continuity in those new agreements: it would negate the progress that has been made by the EU moving away from the ISDS system. Why is it progress? Well, as many in this Committee have indicated, it is not just the fact that Parliament remains sovereign—of course it does—but what use is sovereignty if the constraints on using that sovereignty are so significant? It is the chilling effect, as the noble Earl said, that is potentially blocking. We have seen attempts against France, Australia and Canada, all attempts under ISDS and intellectual property disputes, seeking either policy change from the Government, or compensation. Some of those could mean that regulations would have to be changed. This is the point: public policy should be made in the public interest, not in the shareholder interest.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made the point about moving towards the long term. We have included that in our Amendment 43. He may refer to it as “heroic”, but that has never stopped the Lib Dems seeking those aims in the past. However, I think we have some strong supporters in the European Union with this approach, and we had strong support in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom took part in the Council giving the mandate to the Commission for the negotiations towards a multilateral court system for trade. On 1 March 2008, the Council approved negotiating directives for a convention establishing a multilateral court for the settlement of investment disputes. That was a unanimous decision. The Minister will have to remind me, because I have slightly lost track of which Councils the Government refused to attend after we voted out of the European Union, but I am going on the basis—and he can correct me if I am wrong—that we were part of the unanimity in the European Union to move towards a multilateral court for the settlement of investment disputes. After that mandate was secured with United Kingdom support, discussions started on existing agreements, which we have rolled over, for moving towards an ICS approach rather than an ISDS one. We have rolled over 20 agreements so far. Where there have been elements of ISDS provision, the European Union is looking at them again to move towards a court system. Can the Minister say whether we will do the same?

The benefit of moving towards this is that we will be able to be part of an aligned movement of countries looking towards a more open and transparent approach, and that approach has been taken squarely from the European Union with regard to our colleagues in TTIP. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right to ask this question. This will be a choice for the Government. Because of the transparency in the European Union, we know what the position is. We know what the mandate was. We know what the Government’s position was up until the end of December. We need to know their position now with the agreements yet to come.

Finally, I support Amendment 91 and will be brief on this. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right. Any consequence of taking retaliatory action or imposing sanctions under the WTO—which we will be able to do under our membership of it—will, by definition, and inevitably, be serious and impact our country-to-country relations. As I understand it, we would be able to bring these forward only if we had the previous authorisation of the dispute settlement body at the WTO, having made a public case to it. It seems incongruous to me that we would have made a public case to the dispute settlement body of the WTO for approval but will not be doing the same to our own Parliament to make a decision on the ongoing consequences of the implementation of those regulations. I hope the Minister can clarify that the Government would be open to supporting that aspect.

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

My Lords, I thank all the speakers in this debate. I also echo the thanks from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, to the staff for allowing us to get to where we are. We might have had a rocky ride and have missed a few words here and there, particularly the exchange between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but we are here and we are making progress and we owe them a vote of thanks for keeping us going.

The debate has been rich and the issue has been given a good going over. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others have said, my noble friend Lord Hendy spoke powerfully on the key amendment with a huge amount of knowledge. He confirmed that we took the right decision to hold his speech over from last Thursday. It would not have done well to have had the first part last week and the second part today. I am glad we were able to hear it—some of us got it twice, but it was still jolly good—and I congratulate him on that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

26: Clause 2, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(6A) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1), unless the Scottish Ministers consent.(6B) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1), unless the Welsh Ministers consent.(6C) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of a Northern Ireland department (within the meaning given in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1), unless a Northern Ireland devolved authority (within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1) gives consent.(6D) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, unless they have consulted with devolved administrations on the implementation of international trade agreements.(6E) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown unless the Minister has laid before Parliament a statement that, in the Minister’s view, the regulations do not undermine constitutional arrangements related to devolution.”

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

My Lords, Amendment 26 is in my name and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her support. This amendment would not only require Ministers to consult devolved Administrations in relation to trade matters but would provide a mechanism under which the procedures that flow from trade agreements would be dealt with in consultation, and with their consent. I shall also speak to Amendment 31, which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Amendment 31 again deals with the question of consultation and would add a small section at line 40 of page 2 of the current Bill.

Amendment 50, which is also in this group, is a slightly different measure but an important one none the less; again, it is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Here, we try to bring forward for the consideration of the Committee the question of having a joint ministerial committee and the powers that it might need to discuss international trade issues in relation to the interests of the devolved Administrations. Before anyone in the Committee raises the question of whether we are aware of what we are doing, we are well aware that Amendments 26 and 31 deal with continuity agreements but that Amendment 50, being a proposed new clause, in fact points forward to the new free trade agreements in which we hope the Government will be engaged, and would provide a mechanism under which these could be considered in the context of the interests and involvement of the devolved Administrations.

As with all the others in this group, these amendments are about strengthening and protecting our current devolution settlement. In common with most amendments in Committee, they are probing in nature, although I hope it will be agreed around the Committee that they raise rather big issues, some of which overlap with the internal market Bill, shortly to be received in your Lordships’ House. My noble kinsman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has raised many of the issues covered by these amendments regularly over the years, and I look forward to his contribution later in the debate—although I think that is now likely to be on Thursday. I hope very much that he will be able to attend then.

These amendments stem from the well-known Sewel convention, which has served the country well for many years. But the problem with the Sewel convention, now incorporated into many devolution Acts, is that it covers only primary legislation. It was founded on the principle, however, that UK Ministers would not normally seek to legislate in primary legislation for issues that were not reserved under the devolution Acts. But the question of whether it should or could be made to apply to secondary legislation is still open.

At Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, asked for clarification, but I am afraid that he did not receive much from the responses at that time. So I hope Ministers will take the opportunity now to be clear why, if the powers, for example, to modify retained EU law are to be used by Ministers in the UK Parliament to amend legislation in devolved areas, there is no mention of this in the Bill or a requirement to consult devolved Ministers, let alone a clear commitment not to legislate without obtaining their consent. These probing amendments give the Minister the chance to resolve these matters, which are of pressing importance given the imminent elections north of the border and in Wales. I look forward to his response.

Amendment 50 takes the argument a step further, post the implementation period, in the sense that we currently have very little understanding of what happens if consultation has been carried out but consent has not been obtained from any or all of the devolved Administrations on any matter, including, of course, trade. I am sure the Minister is aware that this is an important issue in the Internal Market Bill where mutual recognition and non-discrimination issues are the key to the smooth running of our internal sale and resale of goods and services.

We urgently need a means of settling disagreements, one that commands confidence and trust, so Amendment 50 is a probing amendment but it points the way, I think, towards reforming and restructuring the present, informal arrangements for the Joint Ministerial Committee in relation to international trade and gives it powers to approve mandates, receive progress reports and see the final agreements before they are ratified. The amendment is clearly complementary to Amendment 57, which is in my name, which deals with parliamentary scrutiny more generally and which is in a later group. I beg to move.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I begin by apologising for not having been able to take part at Second Reading. Amendment 27, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie, to which I have added my name, continues the theme that he and I highlighted at Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill: how we deal with conflict created by power being conferred on the Secretary of State or UK Ministers to make regulations in areas of devolved competence. I make absolutely no apologies for repeating our arguments in relation to the Bill today. It is in many ways similar in its objective to Amendment 26 and other amendments in this group to which noble Lords will be speaking. In essence, we are all seeking recognition by the UK Government of the powers of the devolved Administrations and, at the same time, a mechanism to ensure that their views are sought and taken account of.

In Clause 2, as the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee report on the Welsh Government’s LCM on the Bill points out:

“The international trade agreements potentially covered by this provision will encompass a wide range of policy areas falling within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales”—


as it was at the time of writing—

“to include agriculture and fisheries.”

We all understand that the details of devolution settlements can be complex, but as the Senedd’s External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee acknowledges and clarifies, international relations and the regulation of international trade are reserved matters, but implementing obligations arising from international agreements that relate to devolved matters, to which Clause 2 applies, are primarily the responsibility of the devolved Governments and legislatures. So why are the Government overlooking this?

The Senedd’s LJC Committee is also concerned, as I am, that the powers in Clause 2 (6)(a) allow UK Ministers to make regulations that amend the Government of Wales Act 2006, a legislative provision that is worthy of attention and scrutiny by this Committee as well. These powers, we are assured by the UK Government, will not be used to legislate in devolved areas without the consents of the devolved Governments. This wording, it has been argued, has presumably been used to exclude the devolved Parliaments from consultation. I would be grateful if the Minister will clarify this.

Herein lies another problem for those of us who wish to support and defend our devolved legislatures. Are we to believe those words, “We are assured by the UK Government”? There was a time when a response from a Minister at the Dispatch Box would be accepted as the word of the Government, but experience has shown us that we need to be wary. How easily, it seems, the hard-earned powers gained by the Senedd and the other devolved Administrations can be clawed back by this Government. For more than 20 years, successive Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments have added to the powers of the devolved Administrations, making them the effective legislatures we have today. They crave more powers and, in the case of the Senedd, more Members.

Sometimes Governments can behave in the same way as the very worst of parents in exercising their powers. Domineering and unthinking, they eventually and sometimes belatedly understand that removing rights bestowed on their children leads only to resentment. The best of parents listen to the opinions of their offspring and build a relationship of mutual respect and trust, ensuring that the family remains close. The UK has often been described as a family of four nations, but it is a union that we all agree is most unequal. For many of our citizens, it is a union that is no longer working as well as it could, hence the calls for Scottish independence and a growing openness to the prospect of independence for Wales. Chipping away at the powers of the devolved Administrations only adds to the volume of those calls.

I know how willing the Welsh Ministers are to work co-operatively with the UK Government and the other devolved nations. They have contributed effectively to the development of frameworks in many areas and are content to take that process further. In reacting to the publication of the internal market Bill the Counsel General for Wales, Jeremy Miles, said that the Welsh Government were the first to highlight the need

“to develop a new form of joint governance .... in order to manage the intersection between devolved competence and the internal market”.

His comments are equally relevant to this Trade Bill.

As a signatory to Amendment 27, it has my support. Proposed new subsection (6A) would allow for consultation with the devolved Parliaments in order to obtain their consent to regulations and proposed new subsection (6B) would provide qualified majority voting, ensuring that if more than one Parliament withheld consent the regulations could not proceed. It would provide a mechanism for that co-operation, consultation and consent.

Trade Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in responding to the last group of amendments, the Minster, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, expressed surprise at the broad nature of the debate. I would say to him, perhaps facetiously, “Welcome to the House of Lords”. I fear that this group may tempt his colleague, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, to make a similar observation, but I ask that he does not. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said at the end of the previous debate, the nature of these debates highlights serious concerns that noble Lords have, and the Government should take them seriously, even when they are not necessarily on the face of the Bill.

This is a very good example of that. I shall not speak in detail about Amendment 34, because the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made a very powerful speech. I am also glad that Lady Sheikh managed to get the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, online, because he made a very strident contribution on something that is extremely important.

Similarly, I am not going to talk much about intellectual property. On this issue I bend the knee to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones—and, frankly, so should Her Majesty’s Government. I suggest that the Minister should give my noble friend’s words, and particularly his questions, special attention, because they are serious and important issues that face a lot of companies in this country.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke strongly on data flow. At the risk of provoking the ire of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, I have to say that I agree with her. Her issue is absolutely fundamental—and I shall expand a bit on that.

I have previously quoted the “exuberant” Secretary of State, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, describes her. Here is another quote, from a speech she made to the WTO almost exactly a year ago:

“We believe it is high time to reform digital trade rules so that they are fit for the 21st century, reducing restrictions to market access to support e-commerce and ensure the free flow of data across borders.”


Yet despite this enthusiasm or exuberance, I sense that there are problems when it comes to squaring the conflicting pressures that are mounting around the free flow of data across borders. Indeed, when the Minister kindly invited myself and others to a facilitated discussion on the progress of the US-UK trade deal, I was surprised and shocked by the insouciant response to my question on data adequacy and the issue of reconciling US and EU data rules. It was a very short answer, and to us, it did not show a full understanding of the challenge.

However, it is not just about GDPR. I will talk in a little detail about Schrems II, which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones raised, because it is an important cloud hanging over what we seek to achieve. To remind your Lordships, in that ruling the European Court of Justice, the highest court of the EU, found on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US data protection shield. To explain, it wrote in its press release that

“the requirements of US national security, public interest and law enforcement have primacy, thus condoning interference with the fundamental rights of persons whose data are transferred to that third country.”

It added that

“mechanisms in the EU-US Privacy Shield ostensibly intended to mitigate this interference are not up the required legal standard of ‘essential equivalence’ with EU law.”

Broadly, the US’s prioritization of digital surveillance in the view of the court collides directly with European fundamental rights.

That is a sobering ruling, which spells danger for UK trade aspirations and sets some alarm bells ringing regarding the UK’s surveillance regime. Her Majesty’s Government need to reflect on this very seriously when talking up the potential for a UK-US trade deal that includes data, and they should contrast that stark ruling with the freebooting statement from the Secretary of State with which I opened. By the way, I assume that Her Majesty’s Government are probably having to reflect on this ruling in their efforts to tie down data adequacy with the EU when the transition period runs out. Perhaps the Minister can use this opportunity to update us on progress with these discussions with the EU.

This is not a trivial issue, and we need to demonstrate in this country that we take it seriously. As a starting point, accepting Amendments 15, 16 and 34 would be a very good idea.

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

My Lords, I will be relatively brief because much of what I want to say has been covered by the other speakers, not that I could ever have competed with the tour d’horizon that was the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the expertise also shown by the former Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. It was also a bit of a tour de force, since it touched on every issue there is to touch on in terms of intellectual property. Indeed, if the noble Lords were minded to follow that up with amendments to back up some of the points they were making, the glacial progress we are making so far on the Bill would turn into a complete and utter standstill. So much is going on here, and so many things need to be addressed, that I am almost tempted to go into cahoots with them to try to see whether we can pick them out. Perhaps I will resist that one.

Both Amendments 15 and 16, taken together or separately, are helpful in the sense that, as others have said, they pick up some of the rather considerable concerns that we are all hearing from the IP sector about the future, about what is going to happen to personal data flows and, indeed, about what is going to happen to our IP industry, which is so vital to the UK economy and our cultural industries. They seem to be very sensible information-gathering amendments that do not impose any great burden on the Government, and they would help to inform the situation as we reach the turning points at the end of this year. I hope that they commend themselves at least in outline to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I apologise if I did not make myself very clear when I was speaking earlier, but the Minister did not seem to answer my point. If we are talking about the standards set for any rollover agreements covered by this legislation and—as we hope to persuade the Government—the future free trade agreements that are still to be negotiated with other countries, what standards of child protection can the Government assert they will use if legislation that is going to contain that has not yet been put into primary legislation? For example, he mentioned the commitment in a White Paper, and presumably there will have been legislation, on an issue that deals with child harm. It deals specifically with the question of whether or not the future basis under which this would be done is a duty of care. These are quite important and quite difficult concepts. If they are not there they do not give us a standard. If they are delayed, or in some way changed as they go through the parliamentary process, they may not eventuate into a situation which can be used. My question remains: is this not an issue where it would be helpful to the Government to have something very clear on the face of the Bill that dealt with that particular issue of child harm, which as we have heard, is so important to the people of this country?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

Trade Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

7: Clause 2, page 2, line 9, after “considers” insert “necessary and”

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

My Lords, in moving Amendment 7, I shall also speak to the others in this group, which it is difficult to argue about knowing what is to come further down the agenda and on the list of amendments. I mean this in the sense that it talks about and effectively looks to amend what I will call the status quo ante. I say this because we very much hope that the Government will accept later amendments about scrutiny and other issues; this would, of course, considerably change what would be said in Clause 2, which is about the implementation of international trade agreements.

In some senses, this debate will largely be conducted in a vacuum. I hope I will be able, as I go through, to argue the points that I want to make and that there are points here that we need to focus on quite hard. This is particularly because the opening subsection here—Clause 2(1)—is drafted very broadly, and I will make a particular point about it. I will read it out:

“An appropriate authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.”


This seems such a wide power that is being given to Ministers, and it needs to be questioned in its own right. However, obviously, it plays back into what I have just been saying regarding future amendments that we will discuss in relation to the power of Parliament and where and how its various committees have a role in this process.

Amendment 7 is very narrowly drawn; it suggests that, before “appropriate” we put in “necessary and”, which would make it read “considers necessary and appropriate” in relation to the power being given to Ministers. There may well be an argument against what I am saying along the lines of, “This is splitting hairs and is a legal definition that we do not need to worry about; it is common in many parts of the statute book and we should not be concerned about it.”

However, I thought it would be worth raising this as an earlier point on the agenda because a similar amendment was moved in the Commons by the Member for Dundee East. Regarding the powers in Clause 2, he pointed out:

“The effect of the amendment would be to limit the scope of the powers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/20; col. 130.]


He described those powers as “vague and subjective”. I cannot possibly comment on that, but I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to it. I want to quote, very briefly, what the Minister in the other place said when faced with this amendment:

“The power is needed to implement obligations arising from continuity trade agreements into domestic law over time and in all circumstances.”


He went on:

“Without such an ability to make changes, the UK would be at risk of being in breach of our international obligations.”


I pause, perhaps for hollow laughter. He then said:

“I can assure colleagues that the powers in the Bill will be used in a proportionate way ... The Government view ‘appropriate’ and ‘necessary’ as synonymous”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/20; col. 131.]


That made me think a little, and I went to check the dictionary for my own satisfaction. It defines “appropriate” as:

“Suitable or proper in the circumstances”.


However, it defines “necessary” as “essential” and “needing to be done”. I really do not think that these are synonyms; I hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to throw a little more light on to this.

However, I pause only to set the scene for discussions picked up in later amendments—on which I am very pleased to be joined by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—and one in my name that I will speak to shortly. As I said, Amendment 9 deals with a situation that we hope will change, but it is basically about the use of the powers that are in the Bill and would be used should it be necessary to change or adjust the terms of a free trade agreement currently organised through the EU but that will become a matter for the UK once the interim period is finished.

We think that Clause 2(1) is important and the whole of the clause deals with the way these powers are implemented but also constrained. The point was made in the other place that, although the primary drafting of Clause 2(1)—which gives the power to

“make such provision as the authority considers appropriate”—

is very wide, there are constraints further on, particularly in relation to limits on such matters as not allowing the rule to be used to change tariffs, for instance. In fact, this is because there are powers in other parts of the statute book that would deal with that. Nevertheless, it is an example of the Government’s argument—which I am sure we will hear from the Minister when he responds—which is that, although this is a very broad-based power, it is necessary because of the uncertain way in which these things might change over time.

However, I wonder whether the Minister, when he comes to respond, might look in particular at some of the issues raised in the Explanatory Notes, paragraph 36 of which states:

“Not all obligations in EU-partner country trade agreements will have been fully implemented by the EU in EU law … by the end of the transition period.”


Therefore, the power in Clause 2 will be necessary to pick this up going forward. Could he give examples of areas where this applies? The Explanatory Notes talk about “procurement” and

“mutual recognition … in respect of enforcement or compensation provisions.”

They may well be the limits, but it would be helpful for the Committee to know a little more about that, and, when the Minister responds, I would be very grateful for this. If he wants to write to me, I will understand.

Paragraph 37 of the Explanatory Notes says:

“It is also possible that adjustments may be required to ensure that the new UK-partner country trade agreements work outside the original EU context.”


It states that this might require a “change to UK law”. We are now talking about changes to primary legislation so, again, it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some examples in relation this. The third point is that paragraph 38 says that it is important that we have continuity over time and that regulations must be “up to date”. Again, I think we accept that this is necessary, but it would be useful to have examples.

I do not want to detain the Committee too long on this, but I point out that the power in Clause 2 is very widely drawn. Constraints are implied in the way the Explanatory Notes are drafted but, as we know, these are not part of the statute book and are not able to be prayed in aid. We need statements from the Government to make sure that those arrangements are clear and available for us as we go forward. I think that deals with Amendment 7.

Amendment 10 would apply the provisions in the Bill to trade agreements other than the EU rollover trade agreements and allow the Bill to act as a framework for future trade policy. I suppose that, in tabling this amendment at this time, we are anticipating debates to come, as I have mentioned.

However, it is important that we get the context for this right. It is a complete mystery to me—despite the extensive discussions that we had the last time the Bill was in your Lordships’ House and despite our subsequent meetings with the current Minister and officials about this—why the Government cannot see their way towards an accommodation with those of us who believe very strongly that there is a role for Parliament to play that is not constrained by the negative resolution procedure under CRaG and that the Government would benefit from having more engagement with Parliament during the process of setting up trade deals and in relation to what they are doing, and would benefit in their negotiations with third parties on deals. This is because there would always be the constraint under which Governments would be able to say that they were not able to get such-and-such through Parliament and therefore they could not take it further. However, these issues will be rehearsed on future days, so I will not go into them in any detail, but I wanted to get a bit of the sense of that into the debate that we shall have on this group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his comments. The continuity agreements were those that were in force before 1 January or had been agreed to by the EU, even if not fully ratified, before then. We were fully participating members of the European Union then. The committees of this House and the other place that scrutinise European legislation—the noble Lord knows much more about that than I do, being a new boy—scrutinised these agreements and did that satisfactorily.

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

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. It has been a bit of a rollercoaster ride. I have felt optimistic at some moments and deeply depressed at others. I am going to end up being optimistic because I am that sort of chap. I will take the good that I have heard from my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lord Haskel, in particular. I was grateful on this occasion not to be attacked by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It is always a good day when that happens—I am only joking.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made some good points about keeping in mind the difference between ratification and implementation as we go forward. He is right to stress that point and I am sure we will come back to it. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised a number of questions that had a bearing on that. I started to get slightly worried about where he was heading —for example, on the issue about the implementation of agreements made under the royal prerogative being ratified under the CRaG arrangements. This is an obvious consequence of where we stand with our current procedures. It leaves the question open as to why we need primary legislation. If the Minister is saying that all future deals are to be made in relation to existing standards that will never be lowered, in view of not changing or disadvantaging our labour and environmental standards and our future arrangements on climate change—on the agenda later today—what is this primary legislation of which he speaks? This is something we will need to come back to and I will be thinking about it.

Finally, I want to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which I thought was a good one. Can I join her in asking the Minister whether he could write to us about it? Paragraphs 44 and 45 of the Explanatory Notes refer to varieties of trade agreements and the Minister did not deal with that in his response to the noble Baroness. The types of agreement within the definition of “international trade agreements” include memorandums of understanding and he will know that this matter has been raised with him by the International Agreements Committee of your Lordships’ House. It is a topical point and I would be grateful if he could give us some further information when he is able to do so. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and bow to their expertise. I am stepping in in the place of my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, who is, unfortunately, not able to speak today. I know that the three of them have had sufficient conversation to enable me to be sure that I can support everything that has been said up to this point.

Many of us are utterly frustrated that, in this era when we are so concerned with climate change, the advancement of rail is frequently constrained by the concerns of rail equipment companies about the security of their rolling stock. This protocol addresses that issue. It provides a public registry for rolling stock, which would hugely facilitate cross-border operations of freight and passenger trains, and the certainty that a registry offers. It would free up financing for rail stock, because it provides mechanisms for repossession of collateral in cases of insolvency.

Stimulating private investment in this arena is absolutely critical. This is not a burden that most countries around the world can carry at government level, so ensuring private participation is crucial. We move now into an era where our concern about climate change means that rail options, in contrast to aviation or road options, are increasingly attractive because of the environmental benefits, and very often it is far more cost-effective for exporters and importers.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, the UK has increasingly become a player once again in the manufacture of rail equipment and it needs international markets. It would of course be of benefit if those markets had much greater certainty and confidence in those who are selling.

I am somewhat concerned because, when I last looked—and perhaps the Minister might correct me—only Luxembourg had actually ratified this treaty, although many countries have signed it, as the UK did in 2016. We really want to make sure that there is no obstacle to UK ratification, which would undoubtedly give others the confidence to go ahead and ratify, lifting the whole platform of rail as part of the ongoing future, so that it has much more significant international consequences than even domestic consequences.

I hope very much that we can use this opportunity to bring the issue once again to the Government’s attention. I am very comforted: it sounds as though the Government have found a route for ratification to be achieved. I do not think any of us particularly care what the route is, provided that it is secure and effective. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on this issue.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for introducing this amendment. I am afraid that it is outside my normal expertise area, and I listened with interest to what he had to say. We should support his argument that if it is possible through this Bill to facilitate the rail sector and its development, we should do so. I am happy to back up the points made by other speakers.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, we have a change of rider as I leap into the saddle. I turn to Amendments 8 and 19 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, eloquently explained to this Committee the nature of and reasoning behind these amendments. Taken together, they would expand the scope of the Trade Bill, incorporating the implementation of private international law conventions to which the EU was signatory before exit day.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his constructive engagement with my noble friend Lord Grimstone and our departmental team of officials over recent weeks. As the noble Lord has outlined, this amendment would allow the UK to implement the provisions of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol.

Let me say at the outset that the Government are supportive of ratifying the Luxembourg Rail Protocol. We recognise the competitive advantages which this could bring to the UK rail sector and UK financial services, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, outlined so convincingly in his speech today and at Second Reading. I also took note of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who pointed out the economic advantages.

However, I do not believe the Trade Bill is an appropriate vehicle to provide the powers necessary for the implementation of this agreement. As has been explained to your Lordships, the powers conferred by the Bill are limited and narrow in scope, yet wholly essential for the delivery of the UK’s independent trade policy. It is our view that the contents of the Bill should not expand beyond essential readiness for life outside the European Union.

However, I can advise the noble Lord that the delegated power that was originally part of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill would have allowed the Government to implement domestically private international law agreements, including the private international law elements of a convention such as the one to which he refers.

The Government intend to reintroduce this in Committee in the other place, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, I understand is to be as early as next week—I think 6 October. I therefore urge the noble Lord to encourage your Lordships in this Committee and beyond to support the reintroduction of the delegated power when the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill returns to this House for Lords consideration of Commons amendments in coming weeks.

The Department for International Trade has engaged on an official level with the Department for Transport, which supports the Luxembourg Rail Protocol. The Department for Transport believes that the protocol has potential economic benefits for the UK, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said.

I would be very pleased to facilitate a further conversation on this in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Grimstone in my capacity as a Whip with responsibility for transport and trade policy, and perhaps as an interdepartmental broker—I hope a very honest one. On that basis, I ask that these amendments are withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

11: Clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with and are consistent with—(a) the provisions of international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom;(b) the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015;(c) the primacy of human rights law;(d) international human rights law and international humanitarian law;(e) the United Kingdom’s obligations on workers’ rights and labour standards as established by but not limited to—(i) the commitments under the International Labour Organisation’s Declaration on Fundamental Rights at Work and its Follow-up Conventions; and(ii) the fundamental principles and rights at work inherent in membership of the International Labour Organisation;(f) women’s rights and the United Kingdom’s obligations established by but not limited to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women;(g) children’s rights and the United Kingdom’s obligations established by but not limited to the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and(h) the sovereignty of Parliament, the legal authority of UK courts, the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that regulations made under the Bill can only be made if the trade agreement which the regulations would implement does not contravene the UK’s international commitments with specific reference to human rights and related treaties, and must respect the sovereignty of parliament.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her support for this amendment.

This group deals with high-level considerations—whether we should have constraints and, if so, whether they should be introduced through primary legislation should the Government wish to depart from international agreements or standards which are subject to international treaties such as UN conventions.

We are of course party to a large number of international agreements. The amendment deals in particular with provisions of international treaties that have been ratified—for example, those on the sustainable development goals, international human rights law, international humanitarian laws, the obligations relating to workers’ rights and labour standards, which we have already discussed under the ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and various others relating to matters such as women’s rights and the rights of children, although of course they are not limited to just the conventions that we have, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So the list is very long and very important, and I am sure that no Government would wish to see us depart from any or all of them, should we be in a position to do so, simply for particular trade reasons.

Later groups will deal with our self-generated standards, and there are considerable overlaps. So in a sense this is perhaps a two-part debate, and this one will focus on the outward arrangements that we make with external agencies. But it should not constrain us, and I hope that the Minister will not keep his powder dry, as he said he would in an earlier debate on another issue.

Having said that, I suspect that the Minister’s line will be that the Government will always adhere to the rule of law and treaty obligations, but I think it is fair to point out that trust has already been broken through the Government’s own actions. Even so, it raises the question of why, if there is never to be an occasion on which we would wish to depart from our existing treaty obligations, we are talking about any constraints on the activities that the Government might wish to engage with in terms of their primary legislation agenda related to trade. However, that is for further discussion.

Also in this group is Amendment 18, led by my noble friend Lord Hendy, and that will lead to an interesting debate. In addition, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his powerful Cross-Bench supporters on Amendment 33 will be worth hearing and discussing. We also have an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about reporting arrangements in relation to trade agreements, which I think will also be of value. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I call the noble Baroness, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. No? I think the noble Baroness is unable to join us at this point, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for those comments. I have carefully noted them.

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

My Lords, I am conscious of time and I will try to be brief. We had an interesting discussion because this was a good group, even though it was quite widely drawn. We touched on the limits and what the Government should have to say about their policies going into negotiations. We talked about what aspirations they might have, how they go forward and the scrutiny arrangements that should follow. Out of that came a sense, that we all shared, that if you wanted evidence that trade matters to Parliament, this debate and particularly the section on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, proved that we were talking about substantial issues at the heart of what we think about a democracy and that are important for how we relate to society more widely.

Having said that, we should not forget the earlier discussions, particularly those led by my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Hain. I thought that the speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and my noble friend Lord Judd, were also important and I also appreciated the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hunt. We covered a lot of ground, have a lot to think about and will read Hansard carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

Trade: Trans-Pacific Partnership

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, in the recent agreement in principle with Japan that we were so pleased to reach, there is an extensive data and digital services chapter that we hope will be a model for our future free trade agreements. The points made by the noble Baroness are important and are always in our mind when we negotiate these agreements.

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

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the CPTPP contains ISDS clauses? Given that the Secretary of State described this as an

“advanced agreement full of countries committed to the rules of international trade”,

why do the Government believe it necessary to provide secretive ISDS structures when we and the current members are in good standing and have perfectly adequate legal systems?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, the UK will ensure that any future accession talks with the CPTPP are consistent with our interests and our stated policies and priorities. We are clear that our future investment policy will continue to protect our right to regulate in the public interest and we will ensure that UK investors abroad receive the same high standard of treatment that foreign investors receive in the United Kingdom.

Retail Businesses: Financial Support

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord will be aware that, by 16 August, the Future Fund to help businesses had supported 590 investments with a total of £588 million.

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

My Lords, a number of measures aimed at preventing company insolvencies, included in the recent Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, expire at the end of this month. What plans do the Government have to extend those provisions? Can the Minister set out the new timetable?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. We are urgently considering the need to extend these measures and will announce a decision shortly.

REACH and CE

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We have put in place a new UK REACH IT system, closely modelled on the European system to make the process as simple and as easily replicable as possible. The HSE has been provided with the appropriate resources to police the new system.

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

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, when the transition period ends, health and environmental protection in Northern Ireland in respect of chemical and pesticide imports will be considerably better than in the rest of the United Kingdom because Northern Ireland will still be covered by the existing EU REACH rules and regulations under the withdrawal agreement?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

No. We intend the system in the UK to be as safe and as effective as the EU REACH system.

Japan Free Trade Agreement

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I congratulate the department and its officials on reaching this agreement in principle with Japan. It is a much-needed relief for all those UK companies that would have seen their trade with Japan reverted to WTO terms if the agreement had not been reached by the end of the transition period.

It is also a welcome benefit at a time of great economic uncertainty for the UK’s digital and tech sectors and for other key exporters which, we assume, will benefit from greater access, faster tariff reductions and stronger GI protections under this agreement than they enjoyed under the previous EU-Japan agreement. However, I hope the Minister will accept that in the absence of sight of the actual treaty text, and a full updated impact assessment, there is much about the UK-Japan agreement that we still do not know until these documents are published.

I welcome what is said in the Statement about the extensive scrutiny of the deal itself that will be offered to the International Trade Committee. I also note that there is a reference to an independently scrutinised impact assessment that the department will produce, so that

“parliamentarians are able to interrogate the deal and prepare a report that is debated in Parliament.”

I ask the Minister to confirm that this offer is also available to the International Agreements Committee of your Lordships’ House, and to confirm also that the timing of these releases of documentation will be such that the necessary scrutiny can be done well before the ratification processes of the CRaG Act are triggered—as of course will be the case in Japan, whose Parliament has to ratify the deal before it can be signed.

I have four other questions. The Statement says there will be a tariff reduction on British exports of food and agriculture, which is welcome. However, presumably this is contingent on sorting out the shared quotas we currently have under the existing EU FTA. For example, does this mean that exports will continue to be restricted unless and until other EU countries fail to use them?

The Statement talks up a new area of co-operation with Japan in the automotive and electronic sectors and suggests there will be considerable growth in new areas such as aeronautics. But, as we discussed in an Oral Question earlier this week, is this not likely to be heavily contingent on final decisions on accumulation and rules of origin after the transition period ends? Can the Minister update us on progress in this area?

I ask the Minister what ISDS clauses are contained in the final agreement. If there are any, how can the Minister justify such secretive and unwelcome provisions when there are ample opportunities for agreed parties to use the normal legal processes operating in both our countries?

Finally, can we get behind the headline comparisons that were fed to the press about the benefits this agreement will produce for the UK? Would the Minister agree with me that the correct comparison is what would have happened if we had simply rolled over the existing EU-Japan deal? To put it another way, can the Minister say what we will be able to do after this FTA is ratified that we cannot do now under the existing EU-Japan FTA—and can he quantify that?

As welcome and necessary as this deal with Japan is, it is still nothing like as important, in terms of our global trade, as reaching a deal to maintain free trade with the European Union. Our trade with Japan is worth 2.2% of our current global trade, which does not come anywhere near the 47% that we have with Europe. That is why commentary on this deal from Japan suggests that the deal that will determine the future of the investment and jobs that Japanese companies bring to UK communities is not the FTA we have just signed, but the one we hope to sign shortly with Europe.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, because these Benches want the UK to prosper, we welcome the agreement. However, rather like industry groups, we do so not by hailing it but by sighing a collective sigh of relief that we have secured simple continuity of the benefits we secured as part of the EU. It has come to this—simply securing the trading terms that we had as a member of the EU now that we are out of it was described as “heroic” by a Conservative MP in the Commons on Monday.

It is customary to thank the Government for advance notice of a Statement’s accompanying published documents. However, as referred to, in this case it would have been good to have notice of the text of the agreement—which has yet to be signed—so that we could offer proper scrutiny. In Japan, both Houses of the Diet will need to approve the Cabinet’s decision to endorse the treaty. That is not afforded to our Parliament; we will not have an opportunity to do so. British parliamentarians did with the EU agreement. However, as I said last week on the Trade Bill, the Government seek continuity on most things but not on parliamentary accountability. Can the Government Whips indicate that we will have a substantive debate on this agreement in this House before the Government indicate that they seek ratification?

The Minister gave specific details of the agreement when answering questions on Monday, but we have had no sight of the agreement in order to consider the context and scale of what the Minister said. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I welcome what Liz Truss said on Monday in the House of Commons, with regard to a copy being given to the International Trade Committee. I also would like to know whether that will be afforded to our committee, the International Agreements Committee, and when this will be done. Will the text also be made available, as is common in other Parliaments, to Front-Bench spokespeople on a private briefing basis at the same time as it is sent to the committees? What will be the timeframe between it being sent to the committees and a debate in this House?

We have to reserve judgment on the wider benefits the Government claim for the agreement until we have seen them. Over recent months, we have seen the enormous capacity of the Government to oversell and then underdeliver. For example, there was massive fanfare over securing tariff-rate quotas for British agricultural products in this agreement, but then reports suggest that we have actually secured access to any non-utilised quota for EU goods.

With even greater heralding activity, the press release announced:

“New protection for more iconic UK goods … from just seven … to potentially over 70 under our new agreement”.


Understandably, MPs in the Commons lined up to welcome this, but can the Minister confirm that the agreement has no new protections creating GIs, as Japan is under no obligation to expand further its recognition in the future to beyond what we have in the EU deal? Rather, it will simply be able to consider further requests from the EU to a limit of 70.

If it transpires that this spin—which has also described the agreement as “gold standard”—is actually just a commitment to talk about further potential agreements, such as geographical indicators, the Government are building up a huge amount of expectation for very limited benefit. Given the fact that Japanese company Hitachi’s agreement for nuclear power on Anglesey is likely to have a bigger negative economic impact on the United Kingdom than any benefits of this trade agreement, context is all.

On state aid, the Minister referred to a Question I asked on Monday, and he said clearly that this a perpetuation of EU rules which we will be bound by. Can the Minister be clear and tell the House whether it will require domestic state aid legislation to implement this and, if so, will it be a continuation of the EU regime? When will that be brought forward? On tariffs, what will the overall average Japanese import tariff on UK goods be under this agreement, compared to what we have at the moment?

Finally, the Government said that the benefits are likely to yield £15 billion to the UK economy, but they have not given a timeframe. I looked at the Government’s scoping paper, and it said that that source simply stated over “the long term”. The source for that, in the footnote, was internal DIT analysis from 2018. Will the Government publish that? What is the timeframe for that £15 billion—with no caveat—the Government have announced, overselling and underdelivering again? What is the figure? The Government did not quote from that scoping exercise that that figure does not take into consideration the economic impacts of Covid-19, so what is the real likely benefit?

If we are to see the benefits from this agreement, which we wish to, the Government have to be open and transparent. So far, that transparency is lacking. I hope that the Government will be far more open in the coming weeks.

European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions and Common Provision Rules etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) (Revocation) Regulations 2020

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, I am grateful to the Minister for his clear and focused introduction, which allowed us to understand better the importance of the SI with regard to clearing up the statute book, but also to point out some of the transitional difficulties that the Government will face as they see the end of these substantial schemes, which, as other noble Lords have said, have had such a huge impact across the country. They are a significant investment, many communities are involved, they connect all parts of the United Kingdom, and it is vital that we get this right. That would be true even if it were not also the case, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out, that the impact of Covid-19 stresses every aspect of that and will bring it very much to the forefront of our thinking.

The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, went through the Explanatory Memorandum and asked a number of detailed questions. I just wanted to ask one or two questions related to consultation. The extent and territorial application of this is clearly a United Kingdom issue, and the Minister has made it clear that these funds are and always have been reserved items. However, there is a tension regarding the local impact; other speakers made points on how the further you go from the centre of Whitehall with this, the easier it is to see the discrepancies and differences that need to be addressed, with funding of this nature coming, as it does, with a focus on trying to level up rather than reinforce existing divisions.

I was therefore intrigued to see in paragraph 4.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“Devolved Administrations were involved in the preparation of this instrument.”


Can the Minister indulge us by explaining what that meant? Were they shouted at, engaged, and were there meetings or a discussion? I would really like to know. Contrast that with paragraph 10.1 in particular, which says that there was “no formal consultation”—presumably this was done with ties off, in an informal situation—but:

“Devolved Administrations have all provided consent letters from their ministers to the laying of this SI.”


That is a novel way of doing it. I am intrigued by this; it is a new process, which I have never seen before. Perhaps the Minister would be prepared to share those letters with the Committee. If he is not able to, perhaps he could explain in another letter what was going on here. I am not interested in prying into confidential details but I would like to know how the process works in practice.

All speakers mentioned it, but my noble friend Lord Foulkes and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Bowles, went into some detail about how we are going to be fed information about the shared prosperity funds that replace all the existing funding. As I said, £9.5 billion is a lot for even this Treasury to find on the money tree. The case has been well made for early notification about the thinking behind this and the consultation process going into it. Tying it to some feature of the calendar that allows a Minister to say something more concrete than just “It’s coming soon” would be good.

It is important to get assurances from Ministers that there is going to be a fund of this nature, size and reach, to understand better how constraints will apply to how much it is expected to do and how that will be done, whether there will be partnership arrangements—as was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—and whether there will be a bidding process or top-down delivery. We do not need firm details, but it would be interesting to know which way the Government are thinking.

I follow that with the astute observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that we might need to think harder about what might happen to us if the situation affecting the withdrawal agreement continues and the EU takes sanctions against the UK for its approach so far. If the first port of call is the retention of previously allocated structural funds, perhaps not this SI but the previous one will need to be repealed and we will have to go back to the first version. SI 625 may indeed have a longer life than we originally thought. I do not expect the Minister to go all the way down the track on this, but it would be helpful or reassuring to us if we knew that he had thought this through and that there are plans in place.

As I said at the beginning, we are talking about substantial sums of money, hard-wired into the way our country operates. It may not be the best or a long-term solution, but I appeal to the Government to think carefully about changes, as they come forward. It is important that we learn the lessons from the ESIF and its various formulations over the years. Bringing it all into one fund might be attractive, but the appetite to stop term funding is not there, and they will need to think carefully about how to share this money in a way that is effective and efficient, in terms of its overall goals, and that does not cut out partnership and local intelligence in how it is best applied.

Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Extension of Time Limits for Legal Proceedings) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear introduction of the SI. All noble Lords have taken his point that the intention is not to change the existing arrangements as they affect UK residents in relation to ADR, but to provide an additional safeguard for the extension of time because of the transition period. However, I am no different from the other speakers in that it raises a wider question about how ADR is conceived and operates in the UK, and what the future might bring.

My first point is directly related to that, because the Minister made a strong plea for ADR as a strong alternative to court proceedings and, therefore, a valuable asset for consumers and consumer rights. That depends on whether the ADR systems in place are active, efficient and serve customers well. Noble Lords will recall that, when the original directive was going through, this side of the House spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to persuade the Government—unsuccessfully, in the end—that, when the directive is transposed, we ought to take a hard line against industries that are either slow to take up an ADR system or produce one with weak and ineffective operations. It may be wrong to require ombudsman services to be set up, but they seem to be a gold standard in many areas. Where they work well—financial services is a good example—they provide a mechanism that has the confidence of consumers and is effective in getting results for them, so they do not have to go into the aggressive atmosphere of courts.

When he responds, could the Minister give us a tour d’horizon of consumer areas, at the moment? The noble Lord, Lord Mann, mentioned some topical areas where he felt there were some doubts, and many noble Lords will be aware of the situation affecting the vouchers that have been offered by airlines and other transport operators when tickets have been cancelled. My personal experience is that this is patchy at best: some are very good and able to respond within a few days; some have been a nightmare. I am still not certain whether I have a voucher waiting to be delivered to me, even though the company—I shall not name it—keeps putting on its website that significant progress has been made in getting through the backlog and that it is all going well. It is funny that no voucher ever seems to arrive.

My second point is a narrow one about what is happening with legislation. As I understand it, this SI amends primary as well as secondary legislation, in pursuit of what is a not objectionable objective. I noticed, in the instance I was pursuing, two primary legislative issues—one in Scotland and another in Northern Ireland. However, when I looked at the consultation process, I could not see anything reflective of the sort of discussion and debate that one might have expected from legislation that affects devolved Administrations, in particular Scotland and Northern Ireland. The reference in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum simply says that the department wrote to the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland to seek agreement with the Northern Ireland Executive to make the instrument, and the department confirmed its agreement on 10 February.

Why is nothing mentioned about Section 14 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, or am I missing something? There would have been a case for the Minister to be in correspondence with his counterparts in Scotland on this issue, even if it was only a courtesy. Presumably it is legislation that took place before devolution, but I think it is important to keep the niceties going on these issues.

My third point picks up that made by the noble Lord, Lord Singh, about how this works in practice. Consumers are relying on ADR but, in many cases, can do this only if the issue at hand has been subject to work, particularly by trading standards. We all know trading standards is under considerable pressure and has had additional responsibilities placed on it recently, but little additional resources flow its way. Could the Minister reassure us that trading standards is resourced effectively to do this work and will be able to pick up any additional work that results from this directive? I suspect that it will not be significant.

The point of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, about consumers’ ability to get redress in the EU is important. I appreciate it is not relevant to the strict wording of this SI, but it will be an issue that people pick up. I cannot be the only person who gets nervous—this point was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles —when I buy something from a well-known deliverer of books, the name of which starts with “A”. I often find that the purchase I have made for my Kindle is delivered from Luxembourg.

I had not thought about the connection but the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, made it very clear that that will be a problem if I want to exercise my rights in future about anything that might go wrong. Fortuitously, as far as I am aware, nothing has gone wrong so far, but in an imperfect world we cannot always be certain that that will be the case. Could the Minister give us some words about how he thinks this will develop? Clearly, if the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, is right, we are seeing a considerable diminution in the ability of UK consumers to exercise their rights when they choose to buy from our closest trading partner—the EU. Is that where this is going? Is there anything the Minister can say that would help us?

Square Kilometre Array Observatory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2020

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2020 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this historic discussion about big science, as the Astronomer Royal put it—indeed, very big science. I echo some of what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is an honour to be present and a part of this, and it is humbling to hear about all the extraordinary things that are going on in this area of science. It is very good news indeed that the UK is playing its part and I congratulate the Government on that.

I have little to add to the debate because it is uncontroversial. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I think it would be nice to put a little of the oxygen of publicity behind it, but I understand the difficulties that that may pose. It is nevertheless a good story and good stories deserve their space. I shall finish with a few detailed questions.

I want to push a little further on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum talks about this being a first phase project and that there will be a second phase which will mark

“a significant increase in capabilities.”

I presume that that is code for quite a lot of money. The Astronomer Royal made the point that we are talking about new generation computing and hardware that may still not yet have passed the provability test. The expectation is that a substantial sum of money will be required to do that. I want just to check that my reading of the notes is correct. I do not think that the Minister is in a position to give us details, but perhaps he will confirm, even with a nod, that this is where we are going. We should welcome that because if we are going to enter this, let us go in fully and with commitment, and make sure that we are there not only at the beginning but also at the end of the project to share in the benefits that will be brought forward.

That leads me on to the slightly wider question of whether there is a long-term plan for the SKA. Presumably since it is exploring what is by definition unknown, we are not able to plan right through, but it would be useful to have a reassurance from the Minister that we are talking about a long-term commitment and that this will not be resolved in a few days, a few years, or even a few Parliaments. We need to be sure that we will remain a part of this.

Finally, just to pick up the point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the Explanatory Memorandum mentions other projects of which the UK is now part. I was very glad to hear about them. They had escaped my attention, but it is good to know about them. There is talk about £374 million having already been promised and committed to the European Space Agency for projects undefined. I am not looking for detail, but when he responds perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is not money that is being imagined but is definitely in the budget and will be paid, and that we are talking about long-term engagement with the EU space agency.

There is also mention of a lunar gateway project and other projects in the pipeline. Although I think it is funded differently, the Copernicus Earth Observatory Programme gets a mention. Again, perhaps the Minister could mention anything that comes out that in terms of what funding streams are identified. This is not critical. It is just along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said: the more we know about this, the easier it is to celebrate it.

We support this. We think it is a great project and are delighted to see it well on its way.