Grand Committee
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
Good afternoon, my Lords. If there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, as indicated, this instrument extends to Northern Ireland only. I am most grateful to officials from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs who are here today to assist with advice and support.
The island of Ireland has only 10 native species of fish, which is 40 fewer than in Great Britain and 80 fewer than continental Europe. With fewer species, in turn, it has fewer aquatic pests and diseases and consequently has a higher aquatic health status. We must ensure that this situation is maintained. We also acknowledge the vulnerability of the Northern Ireland aquatic environment and therefore the aquaculture industry to the introduction of diseases and alien species.
In Northern Ireland, aquaculture is a small but very valuable market. In 2017, Northern Ireland aquaculture production accounted for 1,248 tonnes of fin-fish at a value of £6.8 million on 36 active licensed sites, and 5,831 tonnes of shellfish at a value of £9.07 million on 43 active aquaculture sites. The sector employs 93 full-time and 33 part-time staff. Freedom from disease underpins international regulations on the trade in live animals and their products. Northern Ireland enjoys a higher health status than the rest of the UK, as I said, as many of the most serious aquatic animal diseases do not currently exist there. The maintenance and protection of Northern Ireland’s aquatic health status safeguards the interest of the aquaculture sector, as well as the public, who derive health and well-being benefits from angling and other recreational activities.
This instrument will provide the necessary technical corrections to the Aquatic Animal Health Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009—the principal regulations—and the Alien and Locally Absent Species in Aquaculture Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 to enable operability when the UK leaves the EU. These regulations do not introduce any policy changes.
The UK Government remain committed to restoring devolution in Northern Ireland. However, in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, UK Ministers have decided that in the interest of legal certainty in Northern Ireland the Government will take through the necessary secondary legislation at Westminster for Northern Ireland, in close consultation with the relevant Northern Ireland department.
The proposed amendments fall into three main categories. First, cross-references to EU instruments are amended so that they are operable. These amendments modify cross-references to the 2006 directive contained in the principal regulations, and are essential to ensure the operability of those regulations. These are common amendments which appear throughout EU exit statutory instruments for Northern Ireland, England and Wales and Scotland. The amendments include: the substitution of references to “Member State” or “Member States” with references to “Northern Ireland”, “the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs”, “Competent Authority”, or “UK or a constituent UK territory”; the substitution of references to “EU” with references to “UK”; and the substitution of references to articles in the directive with references to provisions in the domestic Northern Ireland regulations that transposed the directive—for example,
“as if … the reference to Article 4 of Directive 2006/88 were to regulation 7”.
Some of those cross-references themselves contain further cross-references to the directive. In those cases, the cross-references have been followed through to modify all necessary provisions.
The second category is provisions which will be redundant or inoperable in Northern Ireland law after EU exit. This instrument makes an amendment to the Alien and Locally Absent Species in Aquaculture Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012. The amendment removes the reference to a representative of the European Commission being able to accompany an inspector from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.
The last category is cross-references to directly applicable EU instruments to reflect technical amendments made to such instruments by other UK-wide SIs. Part II of annexe IV of directive 2006/88 contains a disease schedule which could have been modified only by the EU. It is to be replaced with a new annexe 1A inserted into Regulation 1251/2008 by the UK-wide Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. That will enable the UK to amend the list in retained EU law following exit. The amendments are made to replace references to annexe IV of the directive with references to annexe 1A to the regulation, which will ensure correct references to retained EU law in domestic Northern Ireland regulations.
Given the unique biodiversity of the island of Ireland, DAERA officials work closely with their southern counterparts on a wide range of fish health issues, especially contingency planning, trade matters, disease and biosecurity. Co-operation on those matters was in place long before both countries joined the EU and will continue when the UK leaves it. There is a very close working relationship across the island of Ireland on fish health and aquaculture. For example, the all-island Bottom Grown Mussel Consultative Forum facilitates the management of the seed mussel fishery on an all-island basis. It consists of officials from government departments, scientists, enforcers, the Irish fisheries board and the aquaculture industry. The group has been instrumental in securing Marine Stewardship Council certification for Irish bottom-grown mussels. That prestigious status ensures premium market access for Ireland’s top-quality mussels, demonstrating that the sector is vigilant in disease prevention and control, maintains high biosecurity standards and is environmentally aware. MSC certification underpins industry and consumer confidence and is a lucrative marketing tool.
The intention of the instrument is to maintain the status quo and keep the aquatic animal health and alien species in aquaculture regimes functioning as now. It does not create new policy or change existing policy. As a result, there are not expected to be any significant impacts arising from it. In bringing forward this legislation, a workable legal framework underpinning business as usual will be preserved after exit for aquatic animal health and alien and locally absent species in aquaculture. As I said, the instrument will assist Northern Ireland with its very high aquatic health status, which it shares with the other part of the island of Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, we are expected to consider these statutory instruments in Grand Committee this afternoon about no deal, but imminently the Chamber will consider another string of statutory instruments regarding no deal at the same time. Incapable as I am of being in two places at once, I want to put on record that I think that situation is totally unacceptable. The more important business is of course in the Chamber, because it can actually approve the regulations rather than simply debating them. I think this is now the fourth time that this has happened. Last time, I made representations to the Government Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief Whip, but clearly those representations have not been effective—otherwise we would not be in this situation again today.
I do not intend to take any further part in the Grand Committee this afternoon, because I need to be in the Chamber, but I intend to speak on these regulations when they come to the Chamber, not least because there is very sparse attendance in the Grand Committee this afternoon, and I think other noble Lords would have wished to be here if they did not have to attend to their duties in the Chamber. I regard this debate as essentially unreasonable, in that it has been scheduled alongside the debates taking place in the Chamber. I do not think they will be able to substitute for the debate in the Chamber because they are happening at the same time.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing this statutory instrument forward. He will be pleased to know that I do not oppose it; I just have a couple of questions. I remind the Committee that I chaired the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee next door for one term of five years.
My noble friend set out very clearly the importance of aquatic health to the whole of the island of Ireland. My question goes to the heart of this. I presume this is a no-deal statutory instrument; is that correct, or is it something that will continue in the event of a deal? I read with great interest of the trade deal that has been made with the Faroe Islands. I have visited those islands. I am very proud of my Danish heritage and that the Faroe Islands used to be a part of Denmark. I was intrigued to see that the United Kingdom is selling £6 million-worth of goods to the Faroe Islands, but importing £200 million of goods from them, most of which is fish, particularly shellfish. I understand that a lot of this is crabs. Will this pose a problem for Northern Ireland? Specifically, is the MSC the body that will continue to check all imports from what will effectively be third countries, including other European Union countries—the remaining 27 members of the European Union—at the point of entry? I should know the answer to this, but making the analogy with the Food Standards Agency in England, I want to ask what the relevant body will be and whether my noble friend shares my concern about ensuring that we maintain the excellent aquatic health that Northern Ireland currently has.
In paragraph 7.5 on page 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum—I think this is repeated in the next statutory instrument as well—I was delighted to see that the Government have very wisely chosen to maintain the equivalent or higher standards set by the World Organisation for Animal Health; I will not say it in French, even though I am quite proud of my French accent. I hope that is something that the Government intend to do going forward; I am sure we will discuss this. I am sure my noble friend agrees that it is absolutely vital that we maintain regulations regarding aquatic health in the EU. This is relevant because these will be third-country imports from the date of our leaving, if we leave with no deal.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is always with some sadness that we deal with a Northern Ireland issue, a part of this country that voted remain quite decisively yet is completely unrepresented in the other place. In fact, it is represented by a very extreme party of Brexit. However, we are where we are.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that in my Select Committee this morning we looked at the Faroe Isles FTA and have brought it to the special attention of the House. It would be quite useful to debate it on the Floor of the House, even though it is only our 144th trading partner worldwide.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear introduction and for the courtesy of meeting us beforehand. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I remind the Minister and other noble Lords who have been with us on the journey of these SIs that we remain concerned about the whole process for dealing with them. My noble friend Lord Adonis raised one of the issues, but there are a number of other process issues. I do not intend to repeat them today, but the Minister will be well aware of our concerns. For example, we do not have the aquatic animal health and alien species in aquaculture regulations here today, although the Explanatory Memorandum says they should be linked to this SI. That is just one of the issues about the rather haphazard way in which these SIs are being tabled for consideration.
However, we are broadly in agreement with these regulations. They seem to do their best to maintain the status quo in aquaculture in Northern Ireland. It is clearly important to have a strong biosecurity framework which protects animal health and gives maximum protection from imported and exported disease, so it is important that these regulations are in place from day one.
I reiterate that it is a great regret to us that we do not have a functioning Northern Ireland Executive, so that we have to make decisions in their absence. Perhaps if we were not taking up all government time on the distraction of Brexit the Government would have more time to resolve the huge political challenges that face the UK, but perhaps that is an issue for another day.
On the specifics of this SI, the Minister referred to the close co-operation of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to their shared interests, which are inevitable because they share inland waterways and a coastal aquaculture. Obviously there is a particular danger of cross-contamination within those waterways. But have the Government of the Republic of Ireland been consulted on the content of this SI, and have they registered that they are content with our proposals, given that they have such a lot in common with us?
Also, can the Minister explain in more detail how the buffer zones are intended to work? When I read the SI and the Explanatory Memorandum, I was unclear whether this was a new legislative function, and whether this is imposed around each separate aquatic business or on a larger geographical basis. Does this help protect the waterways between Northern Ireland and the Republic?
Finally, I pick up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Macintosh. The Explanatory Memorandum explains in paragraph 7.5 that EU aquatic animal health standards, as we have them at the moment, are higher than international standards, and that if we do not adhere to EU standards in the future, that could result in the UK being unable to trade products with the EU and third countries. It goes on to say that the Government have, therefore,
“decided to maintain regulations regarding aquatic animal health at or above EU standards”.
We very much welcome this approach. It is an approach that we believe should be applied more widely across other food and animal trade issues which will be dealt with in other SIs scheduled for consideration. It could have been applied in our debate last week on pesticides, for example, but the Government took a different approach on that issue and set up a separate UK regulatory regime, which was not linked to the existing EU one.
Can the Minister clarify the actual clause in the SI that gives effect to this policy? Can he also explain the circumstances in which the principle of applying standards at least as good as those of the EU will apply in future SIs, as we all have an interest in this being rolled out more widely? I look forward to his response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful for a very thought-provoking debate on these matters. I emphasise that the amendments in this instrument are purely about technical changes to ensure that all the arrangements that are being brought over into our statute book are operable and so forth. A number of points were made; if I could run through them and then, if there are any others, I might receive some assistance.
Both my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to equivalent or higher standards. The Explanatory Memorandum states that:
“EU law regarding aquatic animal health set standards equivalent or higher than the international standards set by the … OIE”.
We want to ensure that we are able to trade with our European partners and others post Brexit. Therefore it is vital that our aquatic animal health status is at least of equivalent or a higher standard, to ensure that there are no barriers from a disease perspective. As I have explained, particularly in Northern Ireland, the health status is very high, and there are far fewer aquatic diseases in the island of Ireland. The UK, and Northern Ireland in particular, might want to diverge precisely to set higher standards. We will be able to do so, so that we remain focused on biosecurity and proactive in preventing disease. As I said in my opening remarks, with the far fewer fish diseases that there are on the island of Ireland, that is an absolute imperative.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned the single epidemiological unit. It will of course remain. It actually does not relate to Europe; this is an arrangement agreed by the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly. As I hope I have outlined, it is absolutely essential if the two Administrations are to deal effectively with ensuring that there is a healthy status.
As I said, there is excellent co-operation and collaboration between DAERA and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in aquatic animal health and aquaculture. That collaboration is regular and extensive. Both departments work closely with research institutes, such as the Marine Institute in Galway and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute in Belfast on a range of fish health issues. Also, the north/south fisheries liaison group involves co-operation on operational issues relating to inland fisheries management. It was established by Inland Fisheries Ireland and its parent department, the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment in the Republic of Ireland, DAERA in Northern Ireland and the Loughs Agency. That is important because, if I remember rightly, the five sea loughs are cross-border. The Loughs Agency is a cross-border implementation body, established under the Belfast Good Friday agreement. In addition, there is a north/south standing scientific committee for inland fisheries. I have many other examples of the intrinsic way both parts of the island of Ireland work on these matters.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked specifically what consultation there had been with the Irish Government. Of course, as a matter of courtesy, DAERA will inform them of these technical changes at the next bilateral, but there was no formal discussion because, with the continuum of all the fora I have described, this is how it will be operable in Northern Ireland. As a matter of courtesy, DAERA of course has extensive and regular dialogue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about buffer zones. The wording on buffer zones in this instrument is consistent across England, Wales and Scotland. There is no conferral of a legislative power. DAERA is not transposing article 49(2) of the 2006 directive, but merely ensuring that references to it in the principal regulations, or to provisions that cross-refer to it, operate properly by referring to “the competent authority” rather than “the member state”. The power for DAERA, as the competent authority, to establish buffer zones is precisely to prevent or to limit the spread of disease. The key point is that that is already conferred by Regulation 27 of the Aquatic Animal Health Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009, which transposes article 49 of Directive 2006/88/EC. I am sorry for what seems rather a considerable number of words, but they are to show that it is within DAERA as the competent authority to establish those buffer zones.
To my noble friend Lady McIntosh I say that, yes, this is a matter for a no-deal scenario but, whether the United Kingdom leaves with no deal or not—obviously, the Government are working extremely hard with others to secure a deal—clearly some of these technical operability points would have to be attended to at some point. I do not believe that a lot of our work would have to be attended to to get it into the prism of being UK or Northern Ireland-compliant. As the competent authority, DAERA will also continue to inspect all live fish imports. The FSA in Northern Ireland has a role in relation to products going for human consumption. The MSC is a certification body only—it does not have enforcement powers in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh also raised the question of crabs. Northern Ireland is a strong exporter of crabs landed in the Province, and they are largely sold to the EU, but this should not affect any crabs exported from the Faroe Islands. I was interested in the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about the Faroe Islands, which, no doubt, will be a matter for further consideration and discussion.
The issue of tariffs is still under consideration by the Government, and the Secretary of State said yesterday at the NFU conference that it is matter on which there is considerable focus.
On the question of the export health certificates, the UK remains committed to not imposing a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic under any circumstances. In a no-deal scenario, it is assumed that the EU will require an export health certificate for all exports of products of animal origin, which includes all fishery and aquaculture products. For live exports of aquatic animals, fish health certification will be required to meet EU standards—I conjecture that that would apply to Northern Ireland produce, for the reasons I have described. Consignments approved for export will have to be inspected by an official inspector before departure; that will be an increased imposition on current trading arrangements and will ultimately fall to DAERA resources.
I wonder whether there are any other points that I need to answer; if there are any, I will look again at Hansard. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that with Defra business I will use every endeavour to inform all interested noble Lords. Those who contacted the official on the telephone number found in the back of the Explanatory Memorandum—including, I think, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Parminter—have said to me, “This is wonderful because it so rarely happens”. That is purpose of Defra being a helping hand and not a heavy one, so I encourage that. I informed a number of Northern Ireland Peers that the debate was happening, to say what it was about. They obviously thought the discussions were technical and on operability, but I am very keen that there is this dialogue in the Moses Room. A lot of detailed discussions can take place in the Moses Room. I am mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said about further discussions, but the truth is that all the noble Lords I would expect to see on an issue such as this, where there is a specialism and an interest, are here.
I will look at Hansard to see which areas I might not have precisely covered, but on the basis that I think I have covered as many as I can at the moment, I commend the regulations.
Equine (Records, Identification and Movement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Equine (Records, Identification and Movement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, it is probably appropriate that I declare an interest as a member of the British Horse Society, although, sadly, at the moment I do not own any horses.
The purpose of this statutory instrument is to ensure that EU law regarding equine identification, which will be retained following withdrawal, has the necessary technical amendments made to it so that equine legislation remains operable. This will ensure that the human food chain can continue to be protected and that equines can continue to be traded and moved into and through the EU, while maintaining robust standards of equine health. The current system of equine identification is set out in EU legislation, primarily by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/262 —the equine passport regulation.
The regulations before us do not make any changes to current policy or enforcement already in force, but I would like to set out the principal changes that they make. Part 2 sets out the technical amendments to the text of the retained EU equine passport regulation to ensure continued operability. Part 3 makes similar technical amendments to certain directly retained Commission decisions relating to equines—namely, on the collection of data for competitions, the recognition of stud books and the co-ordination of information exchange between those stud books. Part 4 makes amendments to the EEA agreement, as retained in UK law under the EU withdrawal Act.
These necessary technical amendments to ensure operability involve changing references to the Union in the current EU regulation to refer, instead, to the UK or, where the admission of equines with appropriate ID documents from the EU is concerned, to equines from both the EU and the UK. References to authorities in member states are amended to refer to the appropriate authorities in the UK, which in relation to England will be the Secretary of State, in relation to Scotland will be Scottish Ministers, in relation to Wales will be Welsh Ministers, and in relation to Northern Ireland will be the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.
In Parts 2 and 3 of the regulations, certain articles of the Commission regulation and Commission decisions are omitted by this legislation. For clarification, this is because they contain provisions that will no longer have relevance once Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act is repealed. The omitted articles will therefore become redundant. For example, a requirement to provide for enforcement, or an ability to derogate from the legislation, can no longer be given effect because there will be no legislative power to do so once Section 2(2) is repealed. However, where relevant, necessary provisions have already been given effect by domestic legislation and they will be preserved and continue to have effect by virtue of the EU withdrawal Act.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to one addition that the regulations make, which is the insertion of a new article 15A. This is because, in the event of a no-deal exit, it will be necessary to have the facility to generate a supplementary travel document to accompany some equine movements. Such a document is a standard requirement for certain types of movement originating from a third country. Equine IDs issued by passport-issuing organisations in the UK will not be sufficient for this purpose because the ID must be issued by the competent authority.
This travel document will be necessary only for unregistered equines. These are equines that are not registered on an EU approved stud book or by an international organisation that manages the competition or racing of horses, including ponies. The Animal and Plant Health Agency has drawn up a simple single-page document which will satisfy the requirements of the legislation. It can be printed off and signed by the vet at the same time as other travel documentation is issued. The Animal and Plant Health Agency has taken on additional staff and undertaken training to ensure day-one readiness. In Northern Ireland, the role will be performed by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, which has similarly indicated appropriate readiness.
The House of Lords sifting committee raised the cost of blood tests for equines moving into or through the European Union. To be clear, European rules require that third countries must be assigned a disease risk status. There are seven possible categories which are based on the geographic region of the third country and the level of associated equine health risk. Blood testing is a mandatory requirement for all equines from third countries. The number of tests required reflects the disease risk category assigned to the third country. Given the UK’s high health status and high welfare standards, of which we should be rightly proud, we would expect to be assessed as low risk and therefore subject to the minimum of such tests, which should limit the cost implications on the sector.
The UK has already submitted an application to the EU for the third-country listing of equines as a contingency, as part of a wider application covering other live animals and animal products. The Commission has since indicated its desire to list the UK “swiftly”, if necessary. I should stress that these testing requirements, as with the need for a supplementary travel document, are not in any way due to this legislation. Both requirements are a consequence of the UK becoming a third country; thus we would be subject to existing laws set down for third countries. The equine sector is very familiar with blood tests and it is already the industry norm for current UK to third-country movements.
For the avoidance of doubt, while all equines will require blood tests prior to movement, the supplementary travel document will be necessary, as I have said, only with respect to the movement of “unregistered” equines into the EU. My department has been working closely with key members of the equine industry to ensure that the new processes are as simple as possible. We are communicating the detail of the necessary changes to equine owners and all involved in horse movement. The extent of these regulations is the UK. All the devolved Administrations have been consulted and involved in the preparation of this legislation; indeed, they have consented to it coming into force. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this statutory instrument. I have one or two observations, but I am grateful to him for explaining why the Lords sifting committee has recommended that it should be an affirmative instrument. Clearly, the blood testing will be new for some people who are going to be exporting. I am also glad that the single lifetime document will continue as it is.
I want to ask my noble friend about an aspect that has always worried me and continues to do so: the export of ponies or horses, which on the whole are supposed to be going for riding or other purposes but often go into the human health chain. I am glad that the SI refers to this because it clearly mentions the potential harmful substances which could be in those animals when they are exported. Can he tell me a little more about the Government’s thinking on that aspect rather than the stud, breeding and horseracing side that we automatically think about? However, I think that hundreds of animals are still being shipped abroad for whatever purpose—in the end, we are not quite sure about that.
I turn to the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 13.2 on page 4 refers to “retrospective microchipping” for older horses,
“which will apply from 1 October 2020”.
What will happen between now and then or is something already in place that I have missed? That is quite likely because these statutory instruments are complex.
As far as I am concerned, I welcome the instrument. It is really a matter of transferring EU laws to make it possible for us to continue in the same way. However, we must bear in mind that becoming a third country brings with it additional requirements for those involved in the sector. However, I am much more at ease with those that are registered than perhaps I am with the unregistered. I am not sure how this statutory instrument deals with that aspect of animal welfare and, in fact, in the end of human health welfare too.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his clear exposition. Notwithstanding his assurances, I would like to seek further assurance on two points. First, will this instrument adequately maintain the biosecurity of the UK horse population, particularly regarding African horse sickness and the movement of horses into the UK? My second point was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. In view of the fact that the welfare of horses in the UK might be hindered by the difficulty and costs of enabling humane slaughter of unwanted horses, can the Minister assure us that this SI places no additional impediment on the humane slaughter of horses in approved equine abattoirs, which in some cases might be abroad?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the statutory instrument’s purpose and I thank my noble friend for introducing it. We should not take equine health for granted, given the latest incident of equine flu and the devastating effect it could have on the racing community. I should declare that I am a member of the APPG on racing, and I live on what was a stud farm in North Yorkshire.
What is the relationship between the statutory instrument and the tripartite agreement? When the tripartite agreement was created it was outwith the European Union. It obviously continues to function extremely well and it is slightly confusing that it should have been brought in the EU’s remit when it refers only to horses travelling between the UK, Ireland and France. I know there is great concern that this agreement should continue. I hope the statutory instrument will allow that—it could be one of its benefits—but given that we now have almost less than a month to go, what will the status of the tripartite agreement be and what is the specific relationship between the statutory instrument and that agreement?
Most of the reasons why horses and ponies travel are for racing, breeding and the purposes of riding but, as my noble friend Lady Byford pointed out, there is quite a thriving trade on the continent for edible horsemeat. I confess that I did so once as a student in Denmark, when a trick was played on me and I did not quite realise what I was eating. Having grown up with a little pony, I was absolutely devastated afterwards. There was a sinister development in, I think, 2012 with the horsegate scandal. It showed that there is the potential for, or has been, an animal health issue almost every 10 years: we had BSE in the early 1990s, foot and mouth in the early 2000s, and then what was thankfully only a passing off, not a human or animal health food scandal. But it was totally unacceptable that we never really got to the bottom of the chain. The Select Committee that I chaired tried to invite witnesses who could have proved beyond doubt that there were Irish connections involved, which we were unable to do because we could not subpoena witnesses from outside the United Kingdom.
This is an extremely important instrument for biosecurity, animal health and potentially passing off. I hope my noble friend will put my mind at rest that that is its basis. I have a Question coming up next month, so I will have the opportunity to pursue that further.
My noble friend Lady Byford mentioned the Explanatory Memorandum, in which paragraph 3.2 on page 2 refers to the Lords sifting committee recommendation that this instrument should use the affirmative procedure. It also mentions the “potential costs”. In the disclaimer—for want of a better word—at the end, it is recorded as saying that,
“the total cost … falls below the £5 million”,
but the committee must have been concerned. Will the Minister repeat the actual cost for the benefit of the Committee this afternoon? It is obviously below £5 million, but I will be interested to know what the actual cost will be. I welcome that the department, through this instrument, will continue to allow free movement with a minimum of disruption. That begs the question of potential checks in the event of no deal at ports of entry to the continent. I hope that can be resolved by carrying over the tripartite agreement. If it was initially outwith the European Union, I see no reason why we cannot reach an agreement between the UK, Ireland and France that it should continue.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister and his officials for the helpful way in which they have outlined the impact of this statutory instrument and answered questions from those of us who brought them to their attention. I am particularly glad that we can reassure the general public. I feel that very few of them will read the statutory instrument, but it makes it clear that the status quo will be maintained with regard to equine passports. We do not want horse owners thinking that there will be changes in when they need to get their horses identified or in the status for selling feral ponies because although the SI removes those requirements, they are found elsewhere in domestic legislation. If you read the SI, you would not know that, but it was very reassuring to hear from the Minister that the status quo is maintained with regard to equine passports.
I add my voice to the voices of those who raised the issue of horsemeat entering the food chain. I understand from officials that the regulations with regard to the waiting time before that meat can enter the food chain are carried over in their entirety. Going on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, it is not just horses going abroad. Horses are slaughtered in the UK. We have four registered slaughterhouses in the UK. I was amazed to find out that 2,800 animals a year are slaughtered in the UK for the food chain.
I do not oppose this statutory instrument but it highlights a number of concerns about what will happen to the trade in and moving of horses if there is no deal. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, this mainly concerns racing, competition and breeding, but individual horse owners take their horses to the continent, including younger people who might go to train to be great jockeys in the future, which would be fantastic. It is estimated that 42,000 such journeys are made every year, so if there is no deal, the impact will be great.
I have one question for the Minister. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has noted, the Government’s technical note makes clear that the UK will need to be listed as a third country by 29 March. If we are not listed, we cannot move horses to Europe. Can the Minister confirm whether I am correct that if we are not listed by the EU as a third-party country, no horses will be able to move? That would have an incredibly big impact. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said that the impact assessment, such as it is, refers only to the impact of this tiny SI, which is less than £5 million, but if there is no deal and horses cannot move, that will have a massive impact on the industry and on individual horse owners. Have the Government made any estimation of the cost of that devastating outcome?
The second area I want to touch on is that if there is no deal but we are listed, there will be a need for the new ID document, as the Minister rightly identified. As he said, this should be for non-industry equines only. However, having listened to the debate in the Commons, it seems that there is the possibility that the Commission may not recognise our stud books; that is my understanding of the Commons debate. I would be interested to know whether there is a possibility of the Commission not recognising our stud books. In that case, all equines, including industry equines, would be required to have ID documentation. I know that the Minister has made it clear that the documentation, both the export certificate and the ID documentation, would be available at a minimal cost, but they will require extra blood tests which cost hundreds of pounds. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned in the debate on an earlier SI, this will require vets. However, if we do not get a deal, we will not have the 50% of our vets who come from other parts of Europe. We could be under real pressure in terms of the number of vets we have. Again, that would put an extra burden on horse owners and it is possible that the industry might have to wait longer to enable the veterinary profession to undertake these extra requirements. All of that comes on top of the extra border inspections which may be required at ports. I believe that most horse owners are very caring and considerate; they do not want to see their horses stuck at borders, which would be the result of no deal.
This SI points to the fact that, at the very minimum, there will be extra costs, extra administrative requirements and undoubtedly extra time for horse owners if we have no deal. If we have no deal and we do not get listed as a third party, there will be no movement at all, which will have a massive impact. This is another statutory instrument which demonstrates the huge loss that this country will bear if we leave the European Union on 29 March.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I add my name to other noble Lords who have spoken today and thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. I declare my interests as set out in the register, but hasten to add that I have no connections with anything to do with horses. The Minister is correct to make clear that these regulations are being made in the event of a no deal outcome to the UK leaving the EU and it would be redundant should the UK leave with a deal. I thank the Minister once again for facilitating discussions earlier in the week on the SI.
While EU law is supported by UK domestic enforcement legislation after exit day with a deal, as EU legislation will then be retained under the withdrawal Act, the UK must still have an effective, operable statute book should the UK leave the EU without an agreement, as the Minister has explained. Labour recognises that the regulations largely make no changes to the current policy or enforcement, although there are one or two points I shall come to, and therefore does not oppose them. That is not to say that there are no significant concerns about the considerable impact that a no deal outcome will have on the equine industry as well as nearly every other industry. For this reason, the sifting committee of your Lordships’ House has recommended that the regulations be made under the affirmative procedure.
EU law requires equines to be identified by way of a passport. In most cases, equines born after 2009 must also be uniquely identifiable with a microchip. It is recognised and emphasised that this passport will contain important identity information and pertinent details of veterinary medicines administered to the animal and will define the animal’s current food chain status eligibility. The identification regulations have also been recently updated. The UK’s database was launched on 8 March 2018 and contains data about virtually every equine in the UK except those registered and listed as belonging to semi-wild and wild populations. It is to these populations that my attention has been drawn by World Horse Welfare and I thank that organisation for raising these issues. In his opening remarks, the Minister explained that the technicalities under the legislation withdrawing the UK from the EU might explain some of the anomalies the charity has raised. I thank him for that and I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who underlined this point. Some of the points that I am about to raise might be redundant, although, as World Horse Welfare has specifically asked these questions and I have given the Minister notice of them, perhaps I may outline them so that he can deal with them appropriately.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful again for this very constructive debate. Some of the issues have gone beyond the instrument itself, but I am delighted to answer as many of them as I can. If there are points of detail to follow up, I will ensure that we do so.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees—in fact all of your Lordships, because this is something that we all care desperately about—this SI absolutely is about the continuation of the existing high standards of biosecurity and equine health. There is no change to anything at all in these technical and operability amendments. I say again to my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that there are absolutely no changes in the standards required for horses entering the food chain. Articles 34 and 37 of EU regulation 15/262 cover the action that must be taken when an equine dies or is slaughtered to ensure that the animal’s ID and medication record reflect any medical products administered to the animal and its status regarding the food chain.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the Food Standards Agency enforces checks carried out at slaughterhouses and will take appropriate enforcement should that be required. The combination of the legislation, passports, microchips, the UK’s central equine database and checks by the FSA help to ensure that, with that architecture, the safety of the human food chain is secure.
To confirm, because it is terribly important, particularly to my noble friend Lady Byford, these regulations will not affect government policy on the slaughter of equines for food. The existing equine identification rules do not prevent the slaughter of an equine for human consumption, provided the equine is properly identified in accordance with the legislation and has not been signed out of the food chain.
On the issue of passports, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to in one sense, the current rules around applications for and the issuing of an equine passport are set out in our domestic regulations—for example, at Regulation 6 of the Equine Identification (England) Regulations 2018. For article 12, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, concerning a derogation allowing for a shortening of the deadline for issuing a passport, domestic secondary legislation already sets out the appropriate and necessary deadlines. Therefore, the article is omitted from the retained primary because it is covered in domestic law. The relevant provision in England can be found in Regulation 6 of the Equine Identification (England) Regulations.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, semi-wild ponies are in so many ways an iconic and cultural part of many of our wonderful landscapes. Article 13, which was omitted from the retained legislation, contains the derogation available on semi-wild ponies. The domestic regulations, which came into force for England on 1 October 2018 and in Wales on 12 February 2019, make use of the derogation for semi-wild ponies. Therefore, the allowance rules pertaining to semi-wild ponies are not changing. For example, this is a provision in Regulations 17 to 23 in Part 3 of the Equine Identification (England) Regulations. An equivalent provision is made in the Welsh regulations.
I am well aware of the long-standing nature of the tripartite agreement, which was raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. The Government recognise the importance of the tripartite agreement and we have published the implications of a no-deal Brexit on equine movement in the technical notice Taking Horses Abroad if there’s No Brexit Deal. This made clear that we would no longer have access to the tripartite agreement if the UK leaves without an agreement. Of course, we are seeking and want a deal, and I am well aware of all the equine interests. There has been a very strong working relationship with the equine sector for a long period of time. We fully realise that we want to ensure the free movement of equines as part of the tripartite agreement. If we did not have that access all EU member states would be subject to the same rules on equine movements—we are planning for this scenario, although we do not want these circumstances to arise. I think everyone in the equine world—many in Ireland, although not so many in France—is working as hard as they can to get these matters resolved.
My noble friend Lady Byford mentioned retrospective chipping. This is in our domestic regulations. The 2020 deadline for microchipping is to give time to owners of horses that were not previously required to be microchipped to adjust to the new requirement, but these microchipping requirements are so important for identification if horses are stolen or get loose, or if there are strays. There are all sorts of reasons why it was absolutely right that we extended microchipping to all horses and to give that ability for older horses that were not part of the original regime. I suggest that anyone who has not had their horse microchipped and, inevitably, has a routine visit from the vet, gets it done at the same time.
A number of other points were made. As I said in my opening remarks—the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to it—we have been in close communication with the Commission about a listing, not only on this matter but more widely. Clearly, the stud book issue is alongside that. Although obviously I cannot guarantee it, we are very positive about the response and understanding in the reference to “swiftly” because member states are of course keen to continue with the movement of equines, particularly between the Republic of Ireland and the UK, where there is a strong equine connection, and indeed between the UK and France. It is absolutely understood that it will be of mutual benefit to get those listings.
Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the instrument grouped with these regulations, as they are so interconnected. I should make it clear, first, that neither instrument makes any change to policy. These instruments are technical in nature and are to ensure a smooth transfer of powers from the EU to the UK. Secondly, I make it completely clear that these instruments in no way diminish our controls in the important subject areas covered. There is no proposal to alter or reduce our biosecurity controls for animals or plants, our animal welfare standards or our capacity to protect public health. Thirdly, Ministers will be able to make negative resolution statutory instruments only on specific procedural or technical matters that are laid down in the various legislative functions currently exercisable by the European Commission. The new enabling powers will therefore be confined to those matters that the European Parliament and Council have delegated to the European Commission to implement by way of tertiary legislation with input from relevant experts.
Legislative functions are currently conferred on the Commission by EU legislation. They enable the Commission to set out the technical details of the regimes in what is known as tertiary legislation. The two instruments take those powers currently held by the Commission and transfer them to the appropriate Ministers in the UK. These instruments are therefore correcting measures enabled by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As I have said, the crucial point is that they do not introduce new policy. They preserve the current animal, fish and plant health regimes and simply ensure that we continue to operate effectively.
The Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 cover the area of animal health and welfare. They provide for legislative functions to be exercisable by UK authorities. The exercise of those functions will principally be by way of domestic secondary legislation by the appropriate authorities, made under the negative resolution procedure as they will involve minor technical amendments to the EU retained law. This instrument transfers existing functions currently conferred on the Commission in the areas of: animal transport—Regulations 2 and 6; livestock identification—Regulations 3 and 5; transmissible spongiform encephalopathies or TSEs—Regulation 4; seal products—Regulation 7; animal slaughter—Regulation 9; animal by-products or ABPs—Regulation 8 and 10; and zootechnical conditions— Regulation 11.
These functions include matters such as: amending implementation rules and procedures when amending detailed rules of sampling and laboratory methods; approval of new scientific disease-related tests; revisions to disease monitoring and surveillance; setting down rules for breeding programmes to recognise disease resistance in livestock; determining feed safety practices; amendment of training and educational programmes; and the uniform application of disease contingency plans. They also include the power to amend the welfare requirements for transporting live animals and methods of animal slaughter to take account of scientific and technical progress.
Regulation 12, “Saving and transitional provision” is a cross-cutting regulation applying across this instrument. It contains transitional and saving provisions relating to standard form documents. For example, although new forms will be introduced for the UK, under these regulations, it will also be permissible to use the current EU forms for several months after exit day.
Turning to the Aquatic Animal Health and Plant Health (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, there is one matter which I wish to draw to your Lordships’ attention. This relates to the Explanatory Memorandum, which has been amended. The amended version, which was published on Monday, merely deletes incorrect references to powers not included in the SI, and therefore does not affect the content of the SI. The first was about editing the criteria for listing diseases. This was not included in the SI as the focus of this instrument is to ensure day-one readiness. The power to amend the criteria is not required to be transferred as the current criteria are well-established and effective. The second change involved the power to set out detailed rules for the introduction into the EU of aquaculture animals and related products from third countries. This was moved from this instrument to the Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which contain a number of similar amendments. The detailed rules on imports into the EU are currently set out by the Commission in model health certificates, and the proposed amendments remove these model health certificates from retained EU law and allow the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations to publish new health certificates for imports into the UK. I hope your Lordships will accept my apologies for any inconvenience or confusion. None of this affects this SI, but I wanted to be straightforward and open about the changes.
This instrument also provides for a series of legislative functions currently conferred by European Union legislation upon the European Commission to be exercisable instead by Governments in the United Kingdom. The difference is that this instrument relates to EU directives while the previous instrument covers EU regulations. Directives are transposed into domestic law by regulations or, in some cases, primary legislation, when they come forward, so they are already on the statute book. However, the functions conferred on the Commission in those directives were not transposed as it would not have been appropriate to do so, but they are now being brought in by these regulations to the appropriate Ministers in the UK.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, again I thank the Minister for his very clear and extensive exposition. I have one or two queries regarding the animals legislative functions regulations, particularly concerning regulation EC 999/2001, which concerns the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies—TSEs. Certain substitutions have been made under article 4—“Safeguard Measures”—on which I seek the Minister’s assurance. Specifically, in article 6, the appropriate authority is given any power to disapply the requirement for the annual monitoring programme under certain circumstances—a monitoring programme is required under current EU regulations—and in article 7, the appropriate authority can prescribe tolerated levels of “insignificant” amounts of animal protein in feeding stuffs.
Without seeing the original material, these sound a little concerning. Can the Minister assure us that they do not represent departures from the original legislation and would not leave us unaligned with current EU 27 regulations? That might create a prejudice against our livestock exports.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, these regulations are very technical and I congratulate my noble friend on moving them. I have a question that relates solely to the Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, in particular to paragraph 7.9 on page 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum covering Regulation 9. This is the animal slaughter regulation which will transfer, as my noble friend has explained, the legislative functions from regulation EC 1007/ 2009. I notice that we are transferring the power specifically and allowing Defra, presumably, to,
“define the maximum numbers of poultry, hares and rabbits to be processed by low throughput slaughterhouses; and publish guidance”.
What is the average throughput of these animals at the moment? Is my noble friend minded to specify other categories as well?
Perhaps the Committee will permit me to make a general comment. I was in the European Parliament as a directly elected Member when we passed the original abattoir directive, as I think it was known. I argue that it was not the fault of MEPs that we applied that very restrictively in the UK. That led to a number of slaughterhouses closing. A point of principle has been established—I am sure my noble friend is wedded to it, as am I—that animals for human consumption should be slaughtered as close to the point of production as possible, yet we now find ourselves in a situation where we have a greatly reduced number of slaughterhouses. I had the privilege of representing two different areas, but for 18 years I represented next door to the joint largest livestock production area in the north of England. I believe that animals being transported further, because of the reduced number of slaughterhouses, was a factor in the foot and mouth disease epidemic. I hope that my noble friend will take this opportunity to say that we will draw the line and that we have no intention of reducing the number of slaughterhouses through this or any other regulation.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed exposition of the extent of this legislation. It sounds as though the existing regime will transfer without too much of a hiccup in order to enforce the regulations. However, in declaring my interest as a livestock rearer and a farmer, I cannot resist pointing out that the existing system is not totally foolproof. This is really for another day, but we need to realise that certain diseases seem to slip in not just by midges being blown across from Europe. Two that affect sheep in particular which have come in are maedi visna and ovine pulmonary adenocarcinoma—OPA. These diseases are now hidden in our own flocks and are very difficult to determine.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very helpful introduction, and for his time and that of his officials in producing the very helpful briefings we received prior to debating these statutory instruments. But yet again no impact assessment has been produced for them, as the Government believe there is no significant impact. This is not acceptable, since insufficient time is being allocated to allow proper scrutiny of the raft of Defra SIs in particular that are required to be passed before 29 March. Had the Government started this process earlier there would have been sufficient time for such impact assessments to have taken place, and for the public and politicians to be suitably reassured that no harm would occur. However, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that all our consideration of SIs should take place on the Floor of the House. That would be a very poor use of parliamentary time.
Although the first SI on aquatic animal health and plant health does not make changes to substantive policy content, there is always a risk of new disease and pest risks. The SI gives the Secretary of State powers to manage and prevent diseases and pests in aquatic plants and animals. It also allows the Secretary of State to amend lists of possible diseases and pests on the basis of evidence and bring about restrictions to stop imports if they are believed to be infected with these diseases and pests. However, there is little to say what the evidence base will be for amending lists of diseases and pests, or how this will impact on businesses and the voluntary sector. What type of evidence will be required and where that will come from?
As we are becoming somewhat used to, there are a whole host of delegated powers in this SI that allow the Secretary of State to amend lists of diseases as well as other things listed in Regulation 7 in Part 2. These powers are currently exercised by the Commission as delegated powers. However, the Government do not appear to be drawing back powers that should be held by Parliament. If the Government essentially intend to mirror the EU’s list of diseases and pests, could the Minister say what the point is in claiming back these functions? Surely this is the point of pooled sovereignty.
The list of diseases is transferred, with appropriate modifications, to the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers and Defra in the case of Northern Ireland to exercise in their respective areas. Could the Minister say what these appropriate modifications will be? The Secretary of State may also exercise the functions on behalf of a devolved Administration with their consent. There are several other powers under this directive that are not transferred via this instrument as they are not thought to be critical for day-one readiness and may be transferred in due course. Again, could the Minister say what these functions are and when they might be transferred?
The animals legislative functions SI covers the provision of a lot of animal regulation currently managed by the Commission to be given, again, to the Secretary of State, who may make amendments with the permission of the “appropriate Minister”. New article 2a as inserted by the SI gives a definition of the appropriate Minister, which includes the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and Defra for Northern Ireland, as I said. However, the appropriate Minister has to give consent to the Secretary of State before changes can be made. Could the Minister say what contingencies are in place should such consent not be forthcoming from the Welsh and Scottish devolved Administrations? I presume is it expected that Defra, on behalf of Northern Ireland, will automatically give consent.
I am concerned that the transfer of these powers to the Secretary of State on animal welfare could lead to a watering down of our animal welfare regulations, which are currently some of the best in the world. They include the transportation requirements of animals, the level of checks carried out on livestock, limiting the amount of seal hunt products arriving on the market, and the maximum number of poultry, hares and rabbits to be processed by low-throughput slaughterhouses. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has said, it is extremely important to maintain the strictest regulations for TSE.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, flagged up, could the Minister say just how many hares and rabbits—particularly hares—are slaughtered through slaughterhouses? I am by no means an expert, but I have never heard of hares or rabbits being killed by slaughterhouses in this country. Our hare population, although recovering in some areas, is seriously under threat. The thought that these wild creatures will somehow be subject to a slaughterhouse production line is extremely concerning.
The Government continue to make encouraging noises about their commitment to animal welfare, but appear not to ensure that our current standards are enshrined in our law; they are subject to alteration by the Secretary of State. While the current incumbent is committed to animal welfare, we all know that Secretaries of State can come and go. It is a dangerous policy to allow these commitments to be the subject of individual personnel, as opposed to committed to law.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction today, and his courtesy in providing us with a pre-briefing. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion, and I refer to my entry in the register of interests. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, we reiterate our concern about the process for dealing with these SIs. Once again, we register our concern about the reliance on powers being granted to the Secretary of State without external scrutiny and challenge.
It seems a bit of an act of desperation to produce these composite SIs, which have completely different subject matters, particularly when there are other SIs in the pipeline covering more specific regulations relating to these individual topics. In retrospect, it will make it very difficult for people to navigate their way through all these different bits of legislation and the different SIs.
I turn to the aquatic animal health and plant health SI. We accept that, for the most part, the substance of this SI is non-contentious, but I have a few questions. First, this instrument transfers a number of technical legislative functions to the Secretary of State, but it also refers to “appropriate authority” and “other responsible authorities”, suggesting that these powers may be sub-delegated. If that is the case, to which public bodies do the Government propose to sub-delegate these powers? Assuming that these powers will be sub-delegated, will the public bodies have to report on their use of the powers under the relevant provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018?
The second issue is on plant health. The SI transfers responsibility to the Secretary of State for import restrictions and bans on plants and plant produce, as well as emergency measures for restrictions on imports to prevent plant pests being imported. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, this power is conferred,
“in light of developments in scientific or technical knowledge or technically justified and consistent with the risk to plant health”.
So far, so good, but could the Minister clarify how these functions will be carried out by the Secretary of State, which organisations will be authorised to make that scientific or technical assessment, what will the status be of any advice given in these circumstances, and what additional resources will be required to carry out these functions previously carried out by the EU Commission?
Finally, I have a question relating to the controls on disease in aquaculture animals. In Regulation 6, on page 3, reference is made to adding, varying or removing an exotic or non-exotic disease from the proscribed list. Obviously, we want to make sure that diseases harmful to aquatic animals are controlled and are not inadvertently spread from the EU or third countries, but the circumstances in which these controls are put in place in aquaculture seem to concentrate solely on the adverse economic impact and the likely production or export losses. There is no reference to the welfare or suffering of the species involved.
I realise I am treading on a controversial issue here, but should the Secretary of State not have a wider responsibility to ensure good animal husbandry and a disease-free environment for these fish regardless of the economic consequences? I realise that this SI transfers current EU regulations, but is this something that the Minister will aspire to address when the opportunity arises? I hope that when he replies he will take into account the increasing evidence that fish that are farmed in an aquaculture environment that most closely replicates their natural environment are kept disease free and are less stressed, more productive and more robust in the longer term, so there is a longer-term benefit all round.
Turning to the Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations, again it would be helpful to know the appropriate authority in these regulations and the extent to which its advice is given independently and made public. I also have a few issues of detail to raise with the Minister. First, like the noble Lord, Lord Trees, I am concerned that the regulations on TSEs seem to water down the requirement in the annual monitoring programme to check animals in remote areas with low animal density. They also allow the overall programme to be revised based on a comprehensive risk analysis. Who will carry out this risk analysis and what organisations will be consulted before any changes are made?
The regulations also allow proteins derived from fish to be added to the feed of young ruminants based on a scientific assessment of their dietary needs. Will the Minister clarify who will be responsible for carrying out the scientific assessment? Does he accept that any relaxation of the current rules relating to TSEs should be made with extreme caution?
I refer the Minister to Regulation 7, which relates to the trade in seal products; I gave him notice of this question. As I read this regulation, it seems to water down our current ban on products derived from seal hunts. For,
“Commission shall adopt implementing acts”,
it substitutes,
“the Secretary of State may make regulations”.
It goes on:
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations … prohibit the placing on the market of seal products derived from seals killed as a result of a seal hunt conducted primarily for commercial reasons”.
What is intended to be achieved by that change and why do the regulations not spell out clearly a continued requirement to ban such products on the basis currently in operation in the EU? I look forward to his response on these issues.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this has again been a very interesting and helpful debate. I understand that this is a subject that excites public concern and interest. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was concerned about future Secretaries of State. This instrument is about a very distinct area of operability. Changes of the sort the noble Baroness was envisaging would come through a completely different route. The work we are doing today is very technical and is about issues that the European Parliament and Council have defined as being for the Commission to manage. These instruments are very tightly drawn. Therefore, any changes of the sort that the noble Baroness might be envisaging are not in them because they are not about changing policies in the areas that have come up in these regulations.
I turn to one issue immediately. I can safely say to your Lordships that I am extremely concerned about TSEs and extremely cautious. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised them. I want to make it absolutely clear that the TSE monitoring programme will not be watered down by the amendments; it will continue unchanged after we leave. Similarly, the Government have no plans to alter feeding stuffs regulations. These regulations exactly reflect the current EU programmes. Our existing monitoring programme for TSEs will remain at the current level, and we have no plans to change it. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is the national reference laboratory for TSEs and has the latest scientific evidence. I say that only to ensure that there is a recognition of the expertise that we have, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in particular, will know. Obviously one can never bind anyone else, but this is an area where, given what we have seen in a whole range of areas, we should always be extremely cautious.
As to whether there is any intention of loosening restrictions, the Government do not allow the feeding of fish meal to young ruminants and have no plans to alter that position. Again, any future changes would have to be based on a scientific assessment of the dietary needs of young ruminants and of the control aspects for permitting the young of ruminant species to be fed proteins derived from fish. However, as I said, this Government have no plans to alter the current situation.
I should have declared my farming interests and I apologise to your Lordships for not having done so.
Following the outbreaks of BSE and foot and mouth disease, which resulted from animal by-products entering the animal feed chain, in 2003 the EU implemented legislation to ensure the safe handling and disposal of animal by-products. The Government take very seriously the ever-present risk of the entry and spread of serious livestock disease. We all recall the pain and distress of those outbreaks. I can just remember the 1967 outbreak when I was at school. I was quite young, but I remember it very dramatically. There was also the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001. I want to be absolutely emphatic on this issue. Although this instrument has nothing to do with these matters in terms of the policy, which is not being changed, we simply must not and will not relax our guard. High standards of biosecurity are essential.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell—I was going to say “my noble friend”—asked about rabbits and hares. Rabbit, and possibly hare, form a normal and much greater part of the diet in parts of the EU. There are currently no FSA-approved establishments for the slaughter of farmed rabbits or indeed hares—I have never even heard of hares being farmed. While the UK has a small rabbit farming industry, we are unaware of any commercial farms producing rabbits or hares for meat. Article 11 of directive 1099/2009 provides a derogation that currently allows farms to slaughter up to 10,000 rabbits, hares and poultry per annum outside an FSA-approved establishment, but there are currently no FSA-approved establishments here. This provision was brought back as part of that regime, but I am not sure it has a UK resonance. We have no plans to change any of the arrangements.
Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, we have already discussed fish, horses, animals and plants, and now for something completely different—fertilisers and ammonium nitrate.
This instrument changes legislation in two areas. First, it amends domestic legislation that is out of date and, secondly, it addresses failures of retained EU law to operate effectively and other deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
Legislation surrounding fertilisers concerns the manufacturing and marketing of products. It provides for the definition, composition, labelling and packaging requirements for specific categories of fertilisers that are set out in lists. The legislation does not address the application or use of fertilisers and it does not change the definition or compositional requirements of fertilisers.
In 1975 the EU created its first set of legislation relating to fertilisers. The wide disparity in existing fertiliser rules between member states and the bulky nature of these materials restricting cross-border trade meant that it was not suitable to fully harmonise rules on all fertilisers across the EU. Instead, fertiliser rules were partially harmonised to begin removing technical barriers to trade within the EU. This means that the UK has kept its existing domestic framework alongside the EU framework. The EU regulation sets out the requirements for EC fertilisers, previously called EEC fertilisers, that can be freely sold across the EU. Manufacturers can choose which framework to market their products under, and this partial harmonisation is still in place today.
The current domestic framework for any material described as a fertiliser is the Fertilisers Regulations 1991. In the EU, the current framework is EU Regulation (EC) No. 2003/2003, and this applies only to fertilisers labelled “EC fertiliser”. It was implemented in UK law by the EC fertilisers regulations 2006. Ammonium nitrate fertilisers are controlled through safety regulations that apply to all ammonium nitrate in Great Britain.
Part 2 of the instrument amends out-of-date references in the domestic legislation—for example, omitting references to EEC fertilisers and EC fertilisers to ensure clarity for users of the legislation. In the case of EU legislation, Part 3 of this instrument amends retained EU law to ensure that it will operate effectively after exit day—for example, references to member states and the Commission are amended to refer instead to UK authorities. A requirement as to the language to be used on labels is also amended. The SI replicates the EU framework in UK law by replacing the “EC fertiliser” label with an equivalent “UK fertiliser” label. The requirements will otherwise remain the same.
Part 4 of the instrument amends domestic legislation as a result of exit. It ensures continuity of supply by recognising EC fertilisers for a two-year transitional period after exit day. This will minimise burdens on businesses and authorities.
The amendments made in this instrument do not change the definition, compositional requirements, labelling or packaging rules of fertilisers, whether marketed under the existing domestic framework or under the EU framework.
Ammonium nitrate fertilisers are additionally covered by domestic safety regulations, as they can be misused as improvised explosives and pose safety risks if mishandled in manufacture, transport or storage. Part 4 of the instrument amends the regulations surrounding ammonium nitrate fertilisers with high nitrogen content in Great Britain in order to treat imports from EU member states in the same way as imports from other third countries, in line with WTO obligations. Northern Ireland has separate restrictions on ammonium nitrate for historical reasons, which this instrument does not amend.
Under the British ammonium nitrate regulations, the rules for imports from the EU are different from those for imports from outside the EU. In light of WTO rules, it would not be possible to retain these differences. Therefore, the instrument amends some aspects of the ammonium nitrate regulations—in particular those relating to detonation resistance tests, or DRTs—to apply the more stringent of the two regimes to all imports, whether from the EU or elsewhere, after the end of the two-year transition period, and to uphold current safety standards.
Currently, the definition of what constitutes a “batch” of ammonium nitrate differs depending on whether the import comes from the EU or elsewhere. The EU definition is based on a production run that lasts no longer than 92 days, whereas the non-EU definition relates to any single imported consignment. Using the non-EU definition in this case would cause increased costs for manufacturers due to additional testing, and provides no additional safety benefits. Therefore the EU definition of “batch” will be applied to all imports from exit day.
Continuity of supply is ensured by a transitional period of two years for imports from the EU, which provides 99% of imported ammonium nitrate to the UK. This allows the continuation of current rules with regards to the time limit for detonation resistance test certificates, and the ability to recognise EU laboratory test certificates. These arrangements give manufacturers time to prepare for compliance with the import rules post exit and, importantly, this reduces any burdens on UK laboratories immediately after exit.
The instrument was presented to the sifting committees on 1 November 2018 as a negative instrument. The House of Lords sifting committee was content with that, but the House of Commons sifting committee did not agree with the Government. It considered that the effect of one regulation was to allow Ministers to charge fees to cover the cost of tests needed for official control measures. In addition, it considered that the instrument conferred powers to legislate. It therefore recommended that the instrument be debated in Parliament. The instrument has been amended since it was presented to the sifting committees to reflect certain recommendations in the report, and the Explanatory Memorandum has been amended.
In general, fertiliser policy, like other agricultural policy, is devolved. The devolved Administrations were closely engaged in developing these regulations, which apply to the same geographical areas as the original legislation that they amend. All the Administrations have agreed to maintain a single common framework for fertilisers labelled as “UK fertilisers”, while continuing their own domestic framework. This will make the marketing of fertilisers much clearer for industry, and is a good example of how well the four Administrations work closely together for a common goal.
The instrument relates to the maintenance of existing regulatory standards with no significant impacts, or new or greater administrative or economic burdens on business or other stakeholders. While there was no statutory requirement to consult on this instrument, officials have held discussions with key stakeholders: the fertiliser manufacturers’ representative body, the Agricultural Industries Confederation, and the farmers’ representative body, the National Farmers’ Union. Their main concerns have been addressed by allowing for a transitional period for existing rules and compliance with the amended rules. The changes to the rules on ammonium nitrate have also been developed in conjunction with the Health and Safety Executive and the Home Office to ensure that safety and security elements are maintained or improved.
These measures are essential to ensure that the retained EU framework will operate in the UK alongside the existing domestic framework and, importantly, allow the continued trade in high-quality, safe fertilisers. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this statutory instrument. I shall start where she ended and thank her for the consultation the department has had with the Agricultural Industries Federation and the National Farmers’ Union. It is essential that we take advice from or hold consultations with them. In the same way, I should declare our family’s farming interests because obviously fertilisers are used on the farm.
I have little to question my noble friend on, but I am grateful that the Government have responded to the Commons sifting committee which referred the question of costs to the department. That has been addressed and the Minister has reminded us that 99% of fertilisers are imported from the EU. It would be logical to accept this statutory instrument and I am grateful for the way in which the labelling requirements have been addressed; in other words, we can still use the EU fertiliser labelling scheme until the UK fertiliser labelling scheme is put into place.
The most important thing that I have picked up from this statutory instrument is the need to ensure that fertilisers are bought, sold, stored and then used on farms safely and securely. It is easy for accidents to happen, and we do not wish to see fertilisers fall into the wrong hands. I welcome these regulations and again I thank my noble friend for introducing them.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this statutory instrument on which I have just a couple of questions. Obviously farmers and farming are responsible for a great deal of our ammonia emissions. I want to make a general plea. Someone who is going to take over at the helm of Natural England is not known as being perhaps the best friend to farmers. To which body will farmers be able to turn to advise them on fertiliser use? Also, what is the relationship between this instrument and the ammonia and livestock farming regulations, which have either gone through or are to come through at the same time, that set new rules on housing and better feed and further restrictions on the storage and spreading of slurry? This relates to an earlier debate which I know my noble friend listened to.
It would make more sense if we could have an umbrella statutory instrument which covered every single item relating to the use and control of ammonia. I had farming interests. My brother and I shared the freehold of two fields which I have now offloaded on to him. I therefore have no further interests to declare, although I wish him good luck. It would be helpful if there was a single body that farmers could turn to for advice rather than the various bodies that are policing them. I am afraid that this is a constant theme to which I will return when the Agriculture Bill and the environmental protection Bill reach us. I am sure that my noble friend is a reasonable person, so would it not make more sense if we had one regulation coming through covering the whole issue of ammonia emissions? Good luck with that, but I thought I would mention it. Defra is a busy department with about 100 statutory instruments going through, so perhaps my suggestion would help.
In the guidance is a reference to the fact that:
“The Government will publish a new list of laboratories approved to test to the standards required for the new ‘UK fertiliser’ label”.
It may be that the Government have produced that list and I would be interested to see it as we are now at half past the eleventh hour before leaving. The guidance goes on to say that:
“Any necessary sampling or analysis must be carried out by a competent laboratory included in the Commission’s published list”.
I would expect to see that list and would welcome the news that it has been published.
The notice goes on to say, in the third paragraph from the end:
“The Irish government have indicated they would need to discuss arrangements in the event of no deal with the European Commission and EU Member States”.
Do we know whether we are included in those discussions? It would make sense if we were.
With those questions, and depending on the answers—although I do not intend to stand in the way of the statutory instrument—I look forward to my noble friend’s reply.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I again declare an interest as a farmer who has used fertilisers and ammonium nitrate over the years. I am most grateful to my noble friend for laying out the detail of how these regulations came about and the changes that will be required.
I was very interested to hear her say that we will accept the laboratory investigations from Europe, and I wonder whether this is the first sign we have had of how we will deal with imported chemicals. Presumably, those laboratory tests were required in order for products to gain REACH approval in and across Europe. There is a big question over how we will get authority for all chemicals—both those in this country and those imported from Europe—if we cannot use REACH approvals directly. Some will involve the GDPR, and we cannot just accept them immediately because that would infringe the GDPR concerning transfer of knowledge.
Presumably these regulations are largely to do with importing chemicals for use in this country, but there is of course the other big issue about exports. I do not know whether that will have to be dealt with at another point. One thinks of the Republic of Ireland as the sort of area that, presumably, buys a lot of fertiliser from this country. If it is unable to do so that will, first, affect trade and, secondly, affect the Republic quite considerably.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I certainly have no intention of opposing this fairly straightforward statutory instrument, particularly since ringing round a couple of the people who were described as the key stakeholders. When I phoned one of them, they sent me a reply and copied it to the department. Clearly there is a healthy, if not cosy, relationship between the industry and the department.
I want to make two points. Paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum talks about what will happen, and has been happening, in terms of a risk assessment for these fertilisers. It refers to certain ways in which a fertiliser can be treated,
“if there are justifiable grounds for believing that it constitutes a risk to safety or health of humans, animals or plants or a risk to the environment”.
That is a really important point, given the impact of fertilisers. We accept that they have an important role to play in farming but they are not without their risks. I would like a little more clarity from the Minister about our process for identifying those risks. The memorandum goes on to talk about the changes in the rules being carried out in conjunction with the HSE. Of course—that is perfectly right and proper because the HSE has a remit with regard to human health. However, I would like some reassurance about what the process is at the moment. I am not saying that there are any changes—I am pretty sure there are not—but I would like some clarity. What engagement is there between the HSE and the Environment Agency to ensure that environmental concerns about fertilisers potentially coming into the UK are assessed appropriately, particularly given that, sadly, we import the majority of our fertilisers at the moment?
My second point is merely one of process—a matter that other noble Lords have mentioned. Paragraph 6.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum talks about the need for some changes to be made. They are changes which pertain to this SI but which will be covered in a further SI—the Pesticides and Fertilisers (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations, which will come before us at some point in the future. That SI is the third of the triumvirate of pesticides SIs, which we discussed at great length in the Committee last week. A government impact assessment said that both business and the Government would be extensively impacted, and it seems wrong that this third pesticide SI was not discussed at the same point. I accept that there is an argument that it should and will be subject to the negative procedure at some point, but with that to one side, if you have an impact assessment which covers three SIs and says that there are major implications, it would be helpful for the House to discuss them concurrently.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, as I came to the House today, my local farmers were carting megabags of EC fertilisers everywhere I went. I presume they have come to the conclusion that spring is here; it seems that in spring a young farmer’s fancy turns not to love but to fertilisers.
I thank the Minister for her clear exposition of the regulations, and for the briefing meeting that she very kindly convened. I am sure everyone will be delighted, at this point in the evening, to hear that this statutory instrument appears comparatively straightforward. We welcome the changes that have been made as a result of the consultation and the sifting exercise, including the introduction of a two-year transition period for the fertilisers part of the regulation.
I would much prefer that the transition period be overtaken by an outbreak of sanity and us remaining in the EU, rendering the provisions unnecessary. However, it would be good to hear from the Minister what the Government anticipate that the longer term will hold. Currently, fertilisers are partially harmonised in that member states are permitted to have a domestic regime in addition to the EU rules. Do the Government anticipate us trying to keep in harmony with EU fertiliser standards and controls in the longer term, and if not, what impact would that have on both imports and exports?
Of more concern, though admittedly affecting only a small number of UK fertiliser manufacturers, is the position of those manufacturers who export to the EU. They may already have to meet individual member state requirements where a member state has a domestic regime. A technical notice has been issued by the Government on where the parachutes are if we crash out on 29 March. Under that, UK manufacturers who wish to continue trading with the EU will have to send samples to EU labs for testing in order to comply with EU regulations. Any necessary sampling or analysis will be carried out by competent laboratories included in the Commission’s published list. Manufacturers in the UK will be able to label their products “EC fertilisers” only in accordance with the EU framework, and UK companies will only be able to export EC fertilisers to the EU if they comply with the EU regulations, which include a requirement that I did not quite understand, that,
“the manufacturer is established within the EU”.
Therefore, I ask the Minister for clarification on two points. First, in the short term, does the requirement to have the sampling and analysis carried out by an EU lab double up the costs—an EU lab and a UK lab—and is this an additional burden on UK manufacturers? This would be at odds with the Government’s statement in the Explanatory Memorandum that there will be no added cost burdens to manufacturers. Secondly, does the requirement that the manufacturer is established within the EU in reality rule out UK manufacturers being able to market their products under the EC label if we crash out of the EU at the end of March?
All this would be unnecessary if we came to the conclusion that leaving the EU is the arrant folly which it is, but I am sure the Minister is not going to give any key assurances on that tonight.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has thankfully been a short debate; I believe that this is a fairly simple piece of secondary legislation which we should be able to dispatch fairly quickly. However, I appreciate the comments made by many noble Lords, and certainly from my noble friend Lady Byford. The consultation period was very important to us, and it was quite interesting that the agreement was that two years was the best time; this is the period that had been used previously. For example, when the label had to be changed from “EEC fertiliser” to “EC fertiliser”—they had to knock out an “e”—that took two years, which seemed the appropriate amount of time for the bags to be relabelled and for more to be produced with the new label. The transition period is an important issue for the labelling and I am pleased that it seems all parties are happy with where we have got to.
I turn to the comments made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. It is always a pleasure to see her in these debates, but I sometimes fear slightly what she may say—I do not want to say that she may go off-piste, when I am sure many of us are supposed to be skiing. She certainly asked me some questions that I cannot hope to answer within the scope of what the Committee is discussing. For example, I am afraid that ammonia emissions go far beyond what I have and can help noble Lords with, but it is important that many bodies already exist which farmers can go and speak to on the use of fertilisers. When we get to consider the Agriculture Bill in your Lordships’ House, we will be discussing advice to farmers and their relation to the environmental land management schemes which will be put in place. All those things are very important for how we function in harmony with the countryside, so perhaps my noble friend would hold her horses just a little while longer and we will come back to that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am most grateful to my noble friend for answering as she did. This goes to the point that a number of your Lordships made during the debate that other regulations have been coming through. It must be just as irritating to the team at the department to have this piecemeal approach. It would help farmers enormously if we had one approach to a substance such as ammonia.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My noble friend is quite right but I see us as doing something specific today, which is to protect our country in the event of a no deal Brexit, which I am sure none of us would want to see. I recognise that we sometimes have to deal with these provisions in a slightly piecemeal fashion but they are designed to be piecemeal—to be nice little nuggets that we can discuss and then hopefully move on, having protected our legislative framework which is clearly so important.
I also put forward a slight word of warning because apart from my Defra job I have another, which is as the Whip for BEIS. I am sure that many of your Lordships will be aware that that department has issued an SI which amounts to 330-odd pages. I see my noble friend Lady McIntosh saying that is not a problem but I am afraid that many people have regarded it as a problem. To a certain extent, bite-size pieces can be better. I see the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, rubbing his hands in glee and I hope that I will not be the Minister taking it through—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Henley will be better by then and with us.
To go back to the matters in hand today, my noble friend Lady McIntosh also mentioned the list of laboratories. Yes, that will be republished. At the current time, I believe that three laboratories do fertilisers. It will be republished shortly and I will make sure that that is the case.
I turn to the points raised by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. What we are dealing with today is more about the imports than the exports, as I am sure he will appreciate. It is so important that our farmers have continuity of supply. Obviously, we cannot tell the European Union what to do if we leave with no deal. We will unfortunately be in a situation where there will be no reciprocity. However, it is the case that we import vast quantities of fertilisers, including ammonium nitrate, which is why we are extending a warm hand to those overseas manufacturers and saying: “Look, it’s okay. We will continue to recognise your labelling for the next two years to ensure continuity”.
With regard to chemicals more broadly and the REACH SI, regulations on which will I know be coming to us soon, that is a far more complicated area and we will have to go into it. It was most important for us to make sure that we have the systems and laboratories in place, and that we accept the results from overseas laboratories for that two-year period.
The question of exports was raised, both by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Fertiliser manufacturers based in the UK will, of course, be able to sell products into the EU. If we leave with no deal, they will do so as a third country, but they will have to comply with the EU regulation—they already comply with it at the moment, Regulation (EC) No. 2003/ 2003—and any other relevant legislation.
The noble Baroness raised the point about ensuring establishment—this is a very broad term—within the EU after exit. Sometimes, when exporting to third countries, you have to comply with them as they require. In some cases of larger companies, it would be cost effective to have an office there, but for many it is simply a case of using an import agent in that country. Those requirements would come into being; however, this is for no deal only. If we have an implementation period, none of this will come into play. If we get a free trade agreement thereafter, as we hope, much of this will continue, as we all wish it to, so I am afraid we are dealing solely with a no-deal scenario today.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
Will the Minister confirm that that small number of 20 or 30 manufacturers of fertilisers in this country will have to get lab tests in the UK and the EU—potentially in member states that have a national testing regime—and pay for an agent? That seems like quite a major burden on the poor souls.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I cannot really comment on the costs because the testing of fertilisers is not required quite as often as, for example, for other chemicals. I imagine that there will be a small increase in costs for those companies that want to export into the EU, unless of course the EU decides that it wants to mitigate those costs and would like to work with us, either on a bilateral basis or whatever. That is indeed the case: exporters, whether of fertilisers or, quite frankly, of anything else, will find that certain things will be different for them when they export in future if there is no deal. This is why the noble Baroness and I would like a deal.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
On that point, highlighted by the noble Baroness, the technical notice says that Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, being party to the European Economic Area, will be covered. Will lab costs have to be applied to export to those areas in the event of no deal as well?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
We will have to look into that in greater detail. I will write on that. We are possibly slightly off topic, as this is about the cost of exporting, but I will certainly write. I am very happy to do so.
Turning to the pesticides SI, it covers a range of different topics, so it is important that we discuss it today. It updates out-of-date references and provisions in the Ammonium Nitrate Materials (High Nitrogen Content) Safety Regulations 2003 and makes corrections to the EU plant protection product regulatory regime. It is a bit like what my noble friend Lady McIntosh is doing—it covers lots of things, but we are being told that we should not have done that. This instrument was laid on 18 February. We produced an impact assessment, which considered the collective impact of the three statutory instruments, and noble Lords will know that we have already discussed the other two affirmative SIs. This SI was discussed today in relation to the specific provisions about ammonium nitrate.
I believe that I have covered most of the points raised. Like my noble friend Lord Gardiner, I will review Hansard with great interest to check that I have covered all the points. Where I have already promised to write, I will certainly do so.
House of Lords
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Human Fertilisation and Embryology: Frozen Eggs Storage
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to review the compliance with human rights law of the 10-year limit for storing frozen eggs in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as former chair of the HFEA.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government reviewed all the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 in 2006-07, which led to the 2008 Act and associated regulations, including the 2009 storage regulations. I have been informed that the Government have no plans to formally review the relevant provisions in the Act on gamete storage at this stage. The department’s legal advice is that the current law appears to be compatible with the relevant human rights law.
Baroness Deech
Does the Minister appreciate that this lack of compassion and misunderstanding of the law is going to bring defeat in the courts soon? The storage period of 10 years for frozen eggs was set when little was known about the science, so women either exercise that option when they are at the best age—say, 25—and have to have them destroyed at 35, when really needed; or wait until a less optimal age and still have to have them destroyed when most needed, the entire exercise having cost thousands of pounds. Will the Government not enact a simple regulatory change, costing nothing, which will end this interference with private and family life under human rights law—and the indirect discrimination—and give hope to thousands of women?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I acknowledge that there have been societal changes which have led to women having children later, and technological advances in fertility treatments and freezing. However, I do not agree that the regulatory route that the noble Baroness proposes would be appropriate, as it was not envisaged at the time of the legislation. The strength of this regulation is that it had clinical, parliamentary and public support; given that this is such sensitive legislation, I hope we can continue that going forward. That is why the Government and I believe that continuing with primary legislation is appropriate.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister realise that if a medical condition is the determining factor and has left a woman prematurely infertile, the eggs can be stored for up to 55 years, as is the case with sperm? Therefore, the science has changed. The Government need to recognise that 10 years is an arbitrary and unfair limit. If eggs can be stored for longer, surely this situation is unfair and cruel to women who wish to use those eggs after the 10-year period, for a variety of reasons. Will the Minister ask for a review of the law, and if primary legislation is needed, could it be included in the next Queen’s Speech?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is right: the 2009 regulations were not just concerned with fertility options for people who are already adults. The 55-year limit is intended for those who become infertile through serious illness or side-effects, which can happen in childhood. I understand the concerns about the 10-year limit—there was no consensus during the 2009 review—but it is being continually reviewed and will remain under review by the department.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister say what the Department of Health and Social Care is doing to publicise the fact that it is preferable for women under the age of 35 to harvest their eggs, because after that age the effect is not as good? I realise that some women do not have a choice, but some private firms take a lot of money from women as they get older without telling them of the disappointments they might face.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
My noble friend makes an important point about the success rate of fertility treatment through the freezing of eggs, which is roughly comparable with IVF at 26%. It is important that false hopes are not raised and that women are not exploited in these very sensitive situations.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has just claimed that the current law has public support. Can she say how recently that was explored and what the result was? Also, does the time limit have any effect on a woman’s decision whether and when to have her eggs harvested, and when to use them? Has any research been done on that and if not, why not?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that it is important that we continue to support the Bill. I was trying to clarify that I did not think it appropriate to bring forward a change of this nature under regulations. If we were to introduce a change that had a broad effect, it would be appropriate to do so in primary legislation with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, consultation and clinical support.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, if I may, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, I will take his perch—as long as nobody tells him that. The question of the science has been referred to. As far as we know, 26 years is the longest that an embryo that was subsequently born managed to survive. However, nobody really knows—we know only of the ones that have been reported. As for how long an embryo might survive, a study that measured the cumulative index of background radiation in mice suggested that when the mice embryos were subjected to increasing levels of cumulative radiation, they survived up to the equivalent of 2,000 years. Therefore, a 10-year limit has no scientific basis. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I would never argue with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on any scientific matter. My information is that there was no scientific or biological basis for the 10-year limit. It was based on debate and discussion of societal, ethical and cultural considerations, and on the concern that without a maximum limit, there would be questions about storage banks. Vitrification techniques are far more effective now than the slow-freezing techniques, so it is appropriate that these scientific questions are taken into account as this remains under review in the department.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, is this not just a case of discrimination? Practically every man in this room could still father a child, but none of the women could. This is very similar to when the pill was brought into our lives. This is about extending women’s rights to their fertility, women’s rights to work and women’s rights to plan their lives. As we have heard from many noble Lords, the science is with us; it is only the culture and the politics that are against us.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I have a great deal of sympathy with the position the noble Baroness has just presented. As I say, the 10-year limit remains under review but I do not think that replacing it through regulation in the simple way the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, suggested would be appropriate. It would need to be dealt with in primary legislation and we would need to make time for that in the House. At the moment, that is not a realistic prospect.
Brexit: Legislation
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Beith
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many bills and statutory instruments which have not yet completed their parliamentary process will require to be passed or approved before the United Kingdom leaves the European Union; and how many further bills and statutory instruments needed by the time the United Kingdom leaves the European Union they plan to introduce.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords the progress of all Bills currently before Parliament can be tracked on parliament.uk. We will need to introduce the withdrawal agreement Bill once a deal has been approved by Parliament. Similarly, the progress of all SIs laid by the Government to date can be found on Parliament’s dedicated SI tracker, again on parliament.uk. We remain confident of ensuring a functioning statute book for when we leave the EU.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I can help the Minister with the information that seems to be absent from her brief, which is that there are four major Bills, three of them still in the Commons, including the Agriculture Bill, and probably about 400 statutory instruments—all to be got through in 21 sitting days. Then, of course, if there is a deal at a very late stage there will have to be a withdrawal agreement Bill, which will, among other things, repeal most of the statutory instruments I have just referred to. When are the Government going to face the fact that they cannot do it this way? They will either have to seek an extension of Article 50 or they will be adopting the President Trump approach of bypassing Parliament by the use of emergency powers.
Baroness Goldie
I have known the noble Lord for a long time but I have never known him to be so defeatist. The record to date may not suit him but it is impressive. If we look at primary legislation to date, we have passed the Nuclear Safeguards Act, the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act. These have all been properly enacted in both Houses, scrutinised and passed. On the matter of the SIs, again it may uplift his clearly wilting heart to learn that we have laid, to date, 458 exit SIs in total. We actually expect to lay fewer than 600, so we are well over three-quarters of the way there. I think that both our neighbours in the other quarter and we in this House have demonstrated a capacity to do a very good job under pressure and do it well, and I am sure that that will continue.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, since the Minister is so much wiser than the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will she explain what he meant when he said that it is only the necessary legislation in this long list that needs to be passed by the end of March? What is that necessary legislation?
Baroness Goldie
I would not dare to compare my wisdom with that of my noble friend Lord Callanan, particularly when the arbiter is the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. We are very clear that we are engaged upon a very serious legislative programme, in relation to both primary and secondary legislation, and I pay tribute to the work being done in this House in these respects. We do not want, when exit day arrives, our statute book to look like a Gruyère cheese. What we are doing, both next door and here, is all the necessary work to ensure that that does not happen.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister has a sense of humour: I think she is going to need it. She says it was very easy to get the trailer Bill through. I think we have to be aware—I am looking at the Chief Whip—that the trailer Bill will be a tad easier than such Bills as the immigration Bill and, indeed, the withdrawal agreement Bill, which, if I understand the letter from David Lidington, will have to repeal large parts of the withdrawal Act we have already passed, because we are not now, as I understand it, going to have all those statutory instruments by exit day but by the end of the transition period. Will the Minister perhaps think a little more about how this House is going to deal with rather more complicated legislation than the trailer Bill, important though I am sure that is?
Baroness Goldie
If I may correct the noble Baroness, I did not say that any of that legislation was easy; I merely pointed to examples of Bills that have been passed. Yes, the legislation is challenging and, yes, the timetable is challenging, but I am absolutely satisfied that this Chamber will continue to do its job well, as it has been doing. It has been a very impressive example of a scrutinising, revising Chamber. On the matter of what may happen, assuming that we agree the deal and we get an EU withdrawal agreement Bill through, the majority of SIs are relevant whether there is a deal or no deal. If there is a situation where SIs need to be deferred, the withdrawal agreement Bill can make provision to defer those SIs to the end of an implementation period if they are not actually needed on 29 March.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, if I understood the Minister, there are 150 SIs still to be tabled. If I also understand SIs, they need to be laid at least three or four weeks before they come into effect—so we have two weeks for 150 more SIs to be laid. Am I correct?
Baroness Goldie
The House and the noble Lord are familiar with the mechanisms and procedures that attach to secondary legislation. No one is pretending that this is easy. It is challenging. What I am saying is that this Chamber has a marked sense of responsibility. If we agree a deal and come forward with a withdrawal Bill to enact, there will be a desire right across the Chamber to do everything necessary to ensure that we depart in an orderly fashion and that our statute book is not riddled with holes.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, the reality of the numbers is that more than 400 statutory instruments—as the Minister correctly said—have been tabled. Some 188 have been the subject of scrutiny to date, as of yesterday. There is a big difference—as I have said in this House before—between laying the instruments and getting them scrutinised. I emphasise that the reason for the delay is not the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, or the committee that I chair, but the failure of government departments to expedite the laying of the instruments in the first place. Next week 71 instruments will be considered by the two committees. More than 50% of them come from one government department—Defra. The point has already been made that the Government are running out of time. Laying instruments from now on will not meet the requirement of 40 days to pray against them, as we are fewer than 40 days from the leaving date. If the Government want to expedite this, will the Minister please insist that government departments get on with the job?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord may be surprised to learn that I have a lot of sympathy with what he has said. All government departments are now on red alert to do just that. They realise that their feet are to the fire and there is an obligation on all departments to do whatever they can to facilitate the promulgation of properly drafted instruments and to ensure that the job of scrutiny is then as easily processed as it can be, not only by the other place but by this Chamber. I repeat the figures that I referred to. I think there is a very healthy indication that departments have been listening and have heard these messages.
Retirement Age: Women
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bryan of Partick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much in additional contributions has been paid into the National Insurance Fund as a result of the extension of the retirement age for women born in the 1950s.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm that between October 2017 and September 2018 there were 1.4 million women aged 60 and over employed in the UK. However, I am unable to say how this equates to national insurance contributions. This is because some women may earn under the primary threshold and therefore not pay national insurance contributions and, conversely, others may choose to pay voluntary national insurance contributions but are not working.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. When the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer accelerated the equalisation of the state pension age for women he congratulated himself by saying:
“I’ve found it one of the less controversial things we’ve done and probably saved more money than anything else we’ve done”.
I assume he had a rough idea of what he was going to get in. It was less controversial because at that point the women who would be affected had not actually been told and the WASPI campaign had not got off the ground. Does the Minister think it is fair that these women, many of whom sacrificed their pension rights to bring up families and who are often excluded from workplace pensions, should be making a disproportionate contribution to reducing the deficit while those who helped cause it got off scot free?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, since 1995, successive Governments, including the Government of the party opposite, have gone to significant lengths to communicate these changes using a range of formats, communication methods and styles, including communication campaigns, leaflets and information online. But it is also important to emphasise that there is no link between the balance of the National Insurance Fund and the decision to introduce changes to the state pension age. Changes to the state pension age have been introduced by successive Governments since 1995 to address a long-standing inequality in the state pension age.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have stated that they are committed to supporting people aged 50 and over to remain in or return to work, which is in part in mitigation of the changes to the state pension age. Can the Minister say what in practice is on offer under that heading and how many older persons’ champions are now in post in Jobcentre Plus districts?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, given that people are living longer, which of course we welcome, it is right that arrangements for the state pension system reflect changes in average life expectancy. We are doing much to focus on the need to ensure that we support people who are working longer. The Government are committed to improving the outlook for older workers, including women, affected by increases in the state pension age. The latest figures show that the employment rates for older workers have been increasing: there are 10.4 million workers aged 50-plus in the UK, which is an increase of 1.3 million over just the last five years, and 2.4 million over the last 10 years. But to enable people to work for longer, we have removed the default retirement age, meaning that people are no longer forced to retire at an arbitrary age, and have extended the right to request flexible working to all, which means that people can discuss a flexible working requirement to suit their needs.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a woman born in the 1950s. We know that many WASPI women and other women have made complaints to the ombudsman, and that has now been referred to judicial review. It has been a long time, and we will still have to wait until next June to get a result. These women have waited for justice for a long time, they are suffering, and many are set to suffer even more with the rollout of universal credit. So will the Minister commit today to implement the findings of the judicial review without delay as soon as they are published?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness will appreciate that I am not able to make any comment on the judicial review. However, it is important—I can say this as someone who also was born in the 1950s—that this has a lot to do with not only the fact that we have an increase in life expectancy but with the equalisation between the pension ages for men and women. The fact is that between April 2010 and April 2018, the basic state pension has risen by £660 more than if it had just been uprated by earnings since April 2010, which is a rise of £1,450 a year in cash terms, and that by 2030, over 3 million women will stand to gain an average of £550 per year through the recent state pension reforms. However, we have to think about having a sustainable welfare system that means that generations to come can enjoy a state pension.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on all the work they have done to achieve a higher employment rate for older workers, and in particular for older women. That is important in supporting our economy. I also congratulate them on all the work they are doing in jobcentres to try to help older people back to work. My concern for the women affected here is about those who are facing real hardship who did not know about the changes. What progress has there been in supporting, whether in jobcentres or elsewhere, these women who are facing hardship?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, anybody facing a particular hardship can seek help from, and will be given support and help by, their local jobcentre. There is no question but that women can always have access, if they require it, at any age, to other state benefits to support them. Indeed, a percentage of the contributions to the national insurance scheme goes towards helping to fund contributory jobseeker’s allowance and the NHS; about 20% of receipts are used to fund the NHS. Our national insurance scheme operates on a pay-as-you-go basis: today’s contributors pay for today’s benefit recipients, including those in receipt of the state pension. It is also important to emphasise that we have communicated over the years with women directly affected by the changes in the 1995 Act. Between April 2000 and the end of January 2019, more than 26 million personalised state pension statements were sent out to women, including to myself and others born in the 1950s.
Yemen: UK Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the publication of the report by the International Relations Committee Yemen: giving peace a chance on 16 February, what plans they have to reassess the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the House of Lords International Relations Committee’s report on Yemen, and thank the committee for engaging on this hugely important issue. The UK is doing all it can to help the parties to find a way to end this devastating conflict, and the Government will respond to the report in due course. With regard to arms export licensing, the Government take their responsibility very seriously, and will not grant a licence if to do so would be inconsistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. We rigorously assess every application on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated criteria, drawing on all available information. The consolidated criteria set out the policy framework for assessing export licence applications, and they remain as announced to Parliament in a Written Ministerial Statement of 25 March 2014.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the Government say that they are narrowly on the right side of international law in licensing arms sales to Saudi Arabia—but the International Relations Committee, which has just been so praised, says that they are narrowly on the wrong side of international law, as these weapons are:
“highly likely to be the cause of significant civilian casualties”.
As this appears to be a fine line, what specific evidence would the Government need from the UN, investigators and NGOs to be pushed over the edge and deem those arms sales illegal?
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is a very finely balanced decision; there are respectable arguments on both sides. The Government remain confident that we are compliant with our obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty. The key criterion here, of course, is that there has to be a clear risk that the items might be used for serious violations of international humanitarian law in the future. In terms of the sources that we use, in a recent judicial review the court was very clear that there were significant qualitative differences between the risk analysis that the Government could undertake—the information that we got—and the information supplied to NGOs.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for referring to the report of your Lordships’ Committee on International Relations, and to my noble friend for her reply, but will she undertake, given that this is probably one of the largest and most horrific humanitarian disasters of recent times and given our involvement because of our export supplies, to use all leverage, including possible suspension of arms export licences, to put pressure on all parties—I emphasise, all parties—to the Stockholm agreement to hold the ceasefire, get the food sitting on the docks of Hodeidah to the starving millions and discourage further outbreaks of violence and bloodshed in this appalling situation, which all of us have a responsibility to do everything we can to halt?
Baroness Fairhead
I thank my noble friend for that question and for chairing the committee. It is, as the Secretary-General of the UN has said, one of the worst humanitarian crises. We keep export licences under close and continual review, and we undertake to continue to do that. In terms of the peace process, we are doing all we can to find an end. Our Foreign Secretary and US Secretary of State Pompeo co-hosted a meeting of the Yemeni quad. Our commitment to a peace process, which is at a critical juncture, is absolute, and we are putting our full weight behind the UN peace process, including additional contributions to support the facility. We have also been active in lobbying the international community on rapid, safe, unhindered humanitarian access to the ports, as my noble friend asks.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I have the pleasure of serving on the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and I returned from a visit to the wider region yesterday. Since the war began there, the UK has sold £5.5 billion-worth of arms to the coalition, which includes training in targeting and weapons use. I visited Sudan, where there have been an estimated 14,000 militia—including, the UN has verified, nearly 1,000 child soldiers—in the conflict. It is simply not acceptable for the United Kingdom to be satisfied that we are even narrowly on the right side of international humanitarian law. The situation is so severe and the situation is now so tense with the peace process that, for the United Kingdom to give the moral leadership which we currently do by humanitarian assistance and diplomatically, we can no longer effectively turn a blind eye to the need for a pause on arms exports to Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. That will provide the moral leadership so that we can be fully on the right side of international humanitarian law.
Baroness Fairhead
I can assure the House that we are taking this extremely seriously: this is a really significant issue. In terms of the information and assessments we use, we regularly look at various strands and all the analysis to make our judgment. The noble Lord referred to targeting. We are also ensuring that advice is there so that the lessons we have learned from previous conflicts are used and civilians are not targeted. I can assure the House that we will be doing everything we can to continue to support the peace process and the much-needed humanitarian aid. We have already contributed £570 million since 2015. We have just committed to a further three years of almost £100 million to support child malnutrition. We understand the seriousness of this, and we are actively working at all levels.
Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) (Modification of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 February.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Minister’s Motion to move the Motions en bloc has been objected to.
The Lord Speaker
You have objected to it, even if you do not know it. The Minister should now move the first Motion on its own.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, it is not my intention to delay the House, and I apologise if that is the case. I realise that we have a heavy day of statutory instruments ahead of us.
I would like to use the opportunity of this order concerning Buckinghamshire to make a parochial plea on behalf of my own native Cumbria, in which I should declare an interest as a county councillor. I am raising the issue on this order because the situation of our county is precisely parallel to the situation in Buckinghamshire. I am rather pleased that, in the case of Buckinghamshire, the Secretary of State has decided in favour of a single unitary authority for the county. In Cumbria, we went through an extensive period of debate with the district councils on the question of local government reorganisation. We tried very hard to establish consensus, but we could not and therefore the county council with the full support of all parties has applied to the Secretary of State, as it is entitled to until the end of March, to make a request for consideration of reorganisation.
I would like an assurance from the Minister. I realise that a lot of effort has gone into this Buckinghamshire case and that the Government will have an awful lot on their plate by the end of March, but for us this is an absolutely vital concern if we are to avoid major cuts in our services and to have an efficient local authority system in Cumbria and one that can deal with the very big challenges that we are facing.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, while not strictly on the issue of Buckinghamshire, I think I signed off a letter yesterday to the noble Lord in response to the one that he had written to me on the subject of Cumbria. I am not sure whether he has received it yet—possibly not. The same letter went to my noble friend Lord Cavendish putting forward similar arguments which support the thesis of the noble Lord that there is cross-party support for this. The issue is very much in the in-tray. Suffice it to say that, after the end of March, there is still a facility for local government reorganisation, even if the initiative is not taken before then, although it is on a slightly different basis—it would be an invitation from the Secretary of State. I do not think, from memory of the letter, that we are ruling that out in any way. We would need to consider that.
Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 December 2018 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 February.
Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brexit: Economic Impact
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question given by my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in another place earlier today.
“Mr Speaker, at the end of November, the Government published our analysis assessing the economic impact of leaving the European Union. It not only included an analysis of the Government’s negotiating position as set out in the July 2018 White Paper, but it went further still and considered three other scenarios: a free trade agreement, an EEA-type relationship and a no-deal scenario.
Specifically, the analysis showed that the outcomes for the proposed future UK-EU relationship would deliver significantly higher economic output—about seven percentage points higher—than the no-deal scenario. A no-deal scenario would result in lower economic activity in all sector groups of the economy compared to the White Paper scenario. That is why we should pass this deal: to avoid no deal, and to support jobs and the economy.
In publishing this work, the Government delivered on their commitment to provide an appropriate level of analysis to Parliament. In addition, this House has had plenty of opportunity to debate both the analysis and the deal on the table. As the Prime Minister said, we will bring a revised deal back to the House for a second meaningful vote as soon as we possibly can.
In the meantime, it is right that the Government are afforded the flexibility and space to continue their negotiations. This is because the agreement of the political declaration will be followed by negotiations on the legal text. The UK and the EU recognise that this means that there could be a spectrum of different outcomes. We need to approach these negotiations with as much strength as possible. The focus must now be on the future: planning and prioritising what matters.
Let me remind the House that we will have an implementation period, a new close relationship with the EU and, crucially, the ability to strike trade deals around the world, bringing back control over our money, borders and laws to mould a prosperous and ambitious new path for our country—on our terms. No matter what approach we take, the UK economy will continue to be strong and grow in the future”.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, is it not amazing, with the Government’s industrial strategy on the point of collapse and our car industry showing the enormous stresses and strains of the way the Government run the economy and their attempt to secure Brexit on appropriate terms, that Ministers can trot out these ridiculously optimistic propositions on how the economy will fare? Is it not the case that all the Government’s proposed options would have a serious, negative effect on the British economy? Has the Chancellor not already accepted that they will amount to a loss in GDP of at least 4%? Worse still, the Bank of England said that no deal would have an even more adverse effect than the financial crisis. The Government contemplate a considerable loss. Is it not totally irresponsible to threaten to act in a way that no proper Government would contemplate, in threatening the possibility of no deal?
Lord Bates
I do not accept that, as the noble Lord would anticipate. There are reasons to be positive about the UK’s prospects, particularly if we leave with a deal. The analysis showed the severely negative impact that no deal would have on the UK economy, which is why we want to avoid it at all costs and why a responsible approach from the Opposition, if they care about the economy and jobs, would be to support the deal.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the November analysis demonstrated that every scenario would be hugely damaging to the UK economy; it said that no deal would be worse but that the other options were significantly awful. That raises the question of why the Labour Party is not openly opposing Brexit at this point. The deal modelled here, which the Minister presents as though it were the Government’s, is in fact the Chequers deal, which had within it “max fac” and therefore assumed absolutely no friction in trade between the UK and the EU. That option is no longer on the table. The backstop was part of the analysis as well. We therefore have never at any point seen numbers that represent the deal currently being negotiated by the Prime Minister. Does the Minister not agree that it is a disgrace that MPs will be asked to vote on that deal without ever having seen the analysis of its impact on our economy in the immediate present, the near future and the long term?
Lord Bates
I do not accept that. We produced that analysis, which ran to some 83 pages. The noble Baroness says that we did not produce analysis. It was the proposal for the backstop in the withdrawal agreement that was rejected very clearly in the other place in the first meaningful vote. In all other aspects of what we seek to achieve, we want to see maximum facilitation and trade. That is what the Prime Minister is working tirelessly to secure with our European partners.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that it was a little odd to produce three rather theoretical options but not to test them against the present situation? Why did the Government not do that? That would be the normal thing to do. Could it have been that they were frightened to show that all these options were a good deal worse, some of them very much worse?
Lord Bates
In some sense they did that, because the analysis benchmarked against the status quo—our membership of the European Union. It then went through the options and said that, over a 15-year period, if the White Paper model were accepted there would be a 0.6% impact on GDP, 2.1% modelled on White Paper sensitivity, 4.9% on a free trade agreement and 7.7% on no deal.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, when the Government publish their tariff schedule for what would apply in the event of a no-deal scenario, will they also publish an impact assessment of those tariffs?
Lord Bates
My noble friend puts forward an interesting idea. Of course, the tariff schedule has not been published yet. It will be published shortly, and I am sure the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and others will have heard my noble friend’s suggestion.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, if the Government seriously wanted a deal, they would be able to conclude one very easily in a matter of days on several bases—for example, on the basis of remaining in the customs union indefinitely. I am quite certain they could get it through the House of Commons as well. If the Government stopped listening slavishly to and taking orders from the ERG, and instead interrogated the national interest, that problem would have gone away years ago.
Lord Bates
The solution the noble Lord proposes would necessitate our signing up to a common external tariff barrier, which would mean we could not negotiate our own trade deals; we would not have control of our borders in terms of free movement; and we would still have our laws dictated by the European Court of Justice. That is what was rejected and what we are trying to negotiate an alternative to.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the Minister said that under the Prime Minister’s deal the economy would be 7% better off than in a no-deal scenario. Does the Minister accept that the Prime Minister’s deal would be much worse than remaining in the European Union? The economy would be far better off. Does he admit that? A Norway-plus, least-worst option would also be much better for the economy than the Prime Minister’s deal.
Lord Bates
I do not accept that, because the point is that we do not know what that final deal is. There are also significant factors that need to be put in here, such as new trade deals that could be secured with trading partners. We already had exports at record levels last year. The UK is still regarded—just last month—as the number one location for foreign investment, according to Forbes. Just in January, Deloitte said London was the world’s best city to invest in. The reality is that this country has a huge amount to offer. Once that energy is released and we get beyond Brexit, I believe we will make those figures look pretty sad and depressed.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I follow up the points made by my noble friend Lady Kramer. A statistic in the White Paper on the long-term economic analysis, which assumed much more serious non-tariff barriers than the Chequers White Paper, showed that the hit to GDP would, instead of 0.6%, be over 2%—between three and four times worse. That was reckoned to be the nearest to the actual withdrawal deal—not frictionless trade or all these fabulous unicorn trade deals we were supposed to get, but closer to the reality. I press the Minister again on the need for a real economic analysis of what the Prime Minister is actually negotiating, not a fairy tale.
Lord Bates
I agree with that analysis. That is why I said 0.6% was modelled on the White Paper, but then we introduced a sensitivity analysis which showed that the hit might be 2.1%. That information—which we were told was deficient and incomplete in order to make decisions—is there.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as there are two parties to this deal—the EU and the United Kingdom—would it not be valuable to carry out an impact assessment of what will happen to the EU under no deal, particularly as it sells one and a half times more to us than we do to it and, in the event of no deal, it would not get £39 billion?
Lord Bates
I was with my noble friend right up until the last element of what he said. He and I have gone over that territory before but, on the first part, no deal is not only not in the UK’s interests, it is not in Europe’s interests. We want to see Europe prosper because it is a major market for us. The best thing to do is to resolve this difference over the backstop, which is unacceptable in the other place, get behind a deal, and get on with Brexit.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, may I return to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, a few minutes ago? The Minister said in a previous reply that the benchmark for measuring the impact assessments was the status quo: our present position as a member of the European Union. He also said that every other option tested was worse than the status quo. Will he therefore admit the logic of his response to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria—that remaining in the European Union is better than any other available option, including the Prime Minister’s deal?
Lord Bates
I will give broadly the same answer, if the noble Lord will bear with me. What was not given was any potential up side to leaving the European Union, and the ability to have our own trade deals and set our own economic and trade policy. That needs to be factored in, and we remain confident that we have a bright future outside the European Union, as was shown by the record levels of employment we are seeing in this country, and the falls in unemployment announced earlier this week. These are all reasons to be hopeful and optimistic about the future.
Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order is a routine item of business. It is a short but vital document to preserve the existence of one of our greatest assets—the Armed Forces. The order also serves to remind us that the existence of the Armed Forces is not just a matter of executive decision but also a matter that requires regular parliamentary consent. We provide that consent through our annual consideration of the legislation governing the Armed Forces: the Armed Forces Act 2006. This reflects the constitutional requirement under the Bill of Rights that a standing army, and, by extension, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, may not be maintained without the consent of Parliament.
It is worthy of note that a change was proposed by the Ministry of Defence in the Armed Forces Bill 2005. That Bill did not make any provision for annual renewal, but this was resisted by the Defence Committee and the Select Committee that considered the 2005 Bill in another place. Both committees favoured retaining the present arrangements. The Ministry of Defence amended that Bill, and the practice of annual renewal continues.
That brings me back to the draft order we are considering this afternoon, which is to continue in force the 2006 Act for a further year, until 11 May 2020. Much of what I am about to say has been said in the past, but it is important to explain, and to place on this year’s record, the process for renewal, and to set out the consequences if that does not happen. Every five years, renewal is by Act of Parliament—an Armed Forces Act. The most recent was in 2016, and there must be another by the end of 2021. Between each five-yearly Act, annual renewal is by Order in Council, and the draft order that we are considering today is such an order.
The Armed Forces Act 2016 provided for the continuation in force of the Armed Forces Act 2006 until the end of 11 May 2017, and for further renewal thereafter by Order in Council for up to a year at a time, but not beyond 2021. If the Armed Forces Act 2006 is not renewed by this Order in Council before the end of 11 May 2019, it will automatically expire. If the 2006 Act expires, the legislation that governs the Armed Forces and the provisions necessary for their maintenance as disciplined bodies would cease to exist.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know how often we debate the consequences of the Bill of Rights 1688, but, as the noble Earl said, this is one of them. The Bill prohibited a standing army without the consent of Parliament—a reaction, I suspect, to Cromwell’s stewardship.
When I was a young MP, we had an annual Army Act, which provided an opportunity to raise any issue concerning the Armed Forces. It was a day out for old warriors, from Colonel Wigg up or down, as the case was, to bait Jack Profumo, Christopher Soames and other War Office Ministers. I joined in, despite my limited experience as a Welch Fusilier subaltern, whose occasional job was to be in charge of 10 men, fully armed, taking the night train from Hanover to Berlin, with the blinds down, in order to assert our right to go from the British zone to the Berlin sector. Fortunately, World War III did not break out. Now, instead, we debate annually a statutory instrument, as the Minister said, with the same opportunity to raise any issue concerning the Armed Forces.
The 2006 Act is subject to a quinquennial review, and the next Bill will be in 2020. Knowing this, and following the case of Sergeant Blackman, I took the opportunity to alert the Ministry of Defence to my concern with some aspects of the court-martial system. I did this through Questions in September and October 2017, and a short debate in November 2017. I thought that my dual experience as both a Defence Minister and Attorney-General might be useful.
I was fortunate in my timing with the reply from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who said that,
“the Government have decided that the time is now right for an independent and more in-depth look at the service justice system so that we can be assured that it is as effective as it can be for the 21st century”.—[Official Report, 23/10/17; col. 766.]
I was not alone in criticising some aspects of the court-martial system. Indeed, the Judge Advocate-General, Judge Blackett, did exactly that, and I pray in aid his comments.
The MoD moved with unparalleled speed after I raised the issues in the House—I suspect that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was behind this—by appointing a retired circuit judge, the former Chief Naval Judge Advocate, His Honour Judge Shaun Lyons, to conduct the review. I was fortunate, through the good offices of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd —the former Lord Chief Justice, as we all know—and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to meet Mr Lyons and to raise with him some of the issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said in the November 2017 debate that,
“we look forward to the report of his review in around a year’s time”.—[Official Report, 23/11/17; col. 390.]
Specifically I ask, now that we are in February 2019— 15 months on—and because there has been no public consultation, could noble Lords see the report if it is ready now, before any more work is done on the next Bill?
As the Attorney-General, I initiated and signed a protocol deciding, in those cases where civilians are involved, the most appropriate judicial machinery. I trust that the protocol is working well. Given the reduction in the size of the Armed Forces, despite the fact that various courts have held military courts to be human rights-compliant, there is a case for bringing military courts more into line with civil courts, particularly for the most serious cases, which are my concern. Experienced military prosecutors will ensure that the services’ general discipline needs will be protected. I emphasise that it is the most serious cases, such as murder and rape, which should be tried by a jury, with a judge appointed by the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, who allocates members of the High Court Bench for the more serious cases in our courts, where he or she sees the need. This should be a routine matter as opposed to an occasional departure. The very fact of the rarity of murder and rape cases reinforces my view that an unfair burden is imposed on the judge advocate when such cases are the day-to-day business of High Court judges, who deal with these matters, and licensed senior circuit judges.
The membership of the court martial is hierarchical, and I am told that the most junior member is asked to express his conclusions first. This is not an easy task for a junior member of the court martial, who might be sitting for the first time. Secondly, court-martial verdicts are decided by a majority. You can be convicted of murder or other serious offences by a three to two verdict. This is hardly 21st-century stuff. Thirdly, the voting is secret. In New Zealand in recent years, using the UK system as a model, they have decided that convictions must be unanimous. In our civil courts, there are strict procedural rules for juries to endeavour, first of all, to reach a unanimous verdict and, if they fail to do so, to reach a verdict by a majority of 10 to two where there is a jury of 12. Lastly on that point, the voting figures are made known to the public, to the court and particularly to the accused.
I trust the review will address the problems which I raised in some detail in 2017, and be bold despite the findings in the past on human rights compliance with the existing procedures; and also fulfil the Government’s aim, as the noble Baroness said in November 2017, of a court-martial system that is effective and also fair, in my words, for the 21st century.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his exceptionally helpful introduction to this important issue. As he said, this is a vital matter, which we review through an Act every five years and a renewal every year. It illustrates the fact that this is a parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom. Sometimes, some people, particularly down the other end, forget that this is a parliamentary democracy; Parliament’s role needs to be emphasised, as it is in this continuation order. It is much better than a presidential system, where the president is the commander-in-chief and has more extensive—almost unlimited—powers than the head of Government in the United Kingdom, in a parliamentary democracy. I welcome that.
I want to take the opportunity to raise a related matter. I thank the Minister for his recent excellent written replies regarding an accident that took place in Scotland on 1 September 1994. Someone who saw his replies remarked, “These are exceptional”. Normally, written replies from Ministers, particularly in the House of Lords, are scanty, whereas these were full and helpful.
The incident took place on 1 September 1994 when RAF Tornado ZG708 crashed on a low-flying exercise. Flight Lieutenant Peter Mosley, the pilot, and Flight Lieutenant Patrick Harrison, the navigator, were both killed instantly. The nephew of one of the flight lieutenants, Jimmy Jones, has written to me again. I raised this issue in the other place in 1994 when I was a Member of Parliament and I have raised it on a number of other occasions, because the board of inquiry into the accident was completely inadequate and the relatives received no explanation of why their loved ones were killed and no indication of the cause of the accident.
In Scotland, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, will know, the fatal accident inquiry procedure does not commence automatically in relation to such incidents, and there was no such inquiry. This is an astonishing situation. I do not know if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, recalls the situation but he will certainly know the general legal framework in Scotland, where we do not have automatic FAIs into these military accidents. It seems a strange anomaly.
In thanking the Minister for the written replies, I ask him now, in the light of the plea I am making, to pursue this matter further with the Scottish Government and the Law Officers in Scotland to see whether something can be done, even at this late stage, to satisfy the relatives’ concerns. It is important that we are seen to be fair to these two men, who were prepared to fight, and ultimately to give their lives, on behalf of the United Kingdom. We should give some explanation to their relatives.
I would like to return to some of the provisions of the order. It says:
“The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories except Gibraltar”.
Why is Gibraltar excluded? Our soldiers, sailors and airmen presumably serve there. They may be covered by some Gibraltar legislation, but it is important to know why Gibraltar is excluded from the order. I think that is my only question.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I support this legislation. Other noble Lords and I have pressed on a number of occasions for new arrangements to deal with the difficulties that Armed Forces involved in conflict experience with human rights legislation. Such difficulties are well known to this House. What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to address them, hopefully with a view to introducing such a measure when the Act is renewed in 2020?
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is always extremely clear on these matters; the whole House appreciates that. I declare an ancient interest, in that I was once a service Minister. This is an opportunity for all of us in the House to put on the record again our admiration for and gratitude to the men and women of the armed services for all they do on our behalf, in some exacting and difficult circumstances.
I would like to raise just one point with the Minister. I am one of those who believes that the highest standards of commitment to human rights and the international conventions are essential to effective defence. If we stand for better things, we must demonstrate all the time that we are behaving in accordance with that conviction.
Sometimes, the circumstances are extremely testing and provocative, but in my view that is exactly when this kind of commitment becomes more important, not less. I would be very grateful for the Minister’s assurance that, in our approach to the Armed Forces, we do not slip into the habit of saying, “These are here. We have a commitment to them and we therefore behave accordingly because it is required of us”. Particularly in the context of ill-informed media comment and so on, when training and preparing our servicemen and women, do we take seriously our responsibility to explain why these commitments are important and how central they are to our credibility and effectiveness? It is not just a matter of obeying orders, but of people understanding why what is required of them is so essential.
I think the Minister will agree that this is particularly important with younger members of the armed services, towards whom we have an obvious duty of care. Any convincing assurances that he can give would be immensely helpful.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Association of Military Court Advocates, having been involved in a number of courts martial over a considerable period. Things have changed very much for the better since the 1950s and 1960s. At the first court martial I went to, the officers on the panel marched in and put their swords on the table, sheathed, until the verdict. The sword was then moved and you understood the way the verdict had gone from the direction in which it pointed. That practice was abolished. I also claim some credit for raising in this House the practice of the Navy to march the defendant in at the point of a cutlass. I tabled a Question asking why this procedure still went on; it was abolished in the weeks that followed, before the Minister rose to give an Answer. That is my one tiny claim to military justice.
I have spoken on each of the Armed Forces Bills since that of 2000-01; over the years, we have moved to a much better system, very much influenced by the European Court of Human Rights and its decisions, which pointed out deficiencies in the practice and procedure of courts martial. These decisions were led by Judge Advocate General Blackett—to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, referred—who has been influential in many ways.
It was as a result of long-term advocacy for reform that eventually the inquiry to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, referred was instituted by the Ministry of Defence. I had the pleasure of meeting the retired judge who was in charge of that inquiry. I would like to know from the Minister when his report will be available and, in particular, whether it will be available with plenty of time for full consultation throughout the profession, and among other professionals, before we come to deal with the Bill in a year or two’s time. It is very important that we should have the opportunity to consider and, perhaps, contribute to the Bill that will subsequently come before this House.
There has been much progress under all Governments; I hope that progress will be maintained.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I have not been involved in any of the Armed Forces Bills going back to 2006 or before, nor indeed to the equivalent statutory instrument last year. However, last year the equivalent debate was in Grand Committee in the Moses Room, where I listened to my noble friend Lord Campbell speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
When I went yesterday to get the draft statutory instrument, the Printed Paper Office was a little overtasked. In the end, I was given six copies of a draft that said “2018”. I thought that did not seem quite right, but I read the draft. I went in this morning to see whether that was really what I was meant to be reading, and got the draft defence statutory instrument for 2019. The phrasing of the two statutory instruments is almost equivalent, but two paragraphs have been added to the Explanatory Memorandum. There is paragraph 8, to which the noble Lord, Foulkes, has already referred, and paragraph 9, which says, under the heading “Consolidation”:
“This instrument does not amend any other legislation so no consolidation is needed”.
However, paragraph 8 on the EU, headed “(Withdrawal) Act/Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union”, says that it does not relate to this—and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said “Hallelujah”. If one looks very closely at the Explanatory Memorandum, the footer indicates that it is from DExEU. I assume that this is simply because the Civil Service is so overwhelmed by statutory instruments at the moment that the assumption is that nothing can come as a statutory instrument that does not relate to Brexit. It says “DExEU/EM/8-2018.2”. I assume that DExEU is not really involved with this statutory instrument, and that it is the normal MoD statutory instrument and Explanatory Memorandum.
We have already heard that whether the Armed Forces, starting with the Army, can go forward requires the consent of Parliament. This year, of all years, it is essential that Parliament gives its consent to ensuring that the Armed Forces can move forward. If we are to believe some of the preparations for Brexit and a no-deal Brexit, we are led to understand that Her Majesty’s Armed Forces might be brought into some sort of action to ensure stability, not just of the realm externally, but within the United Kingdom.
Since this order appears to be being used a bit like a Christmas tree Bill, to enable noble Lords to talk about various defence issues, clearly it is important to stress, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Judd, our support for and gratitude to the Armed Forces for everything they do in the service of our country. On this occasion, however, I should also like to ask the Minister whether the Armed Forces are being prepared for action in the event of a no-deal Brexit, and what work Her Majesty’s Government are doing to ensure that the Armed Forces have the resources that they require.
The Minister has told us that the statutory instrument and these rules allow for command, disciple and justice, all of which are important, but it is also important to think about the well-being of our Armed Forces, and ensure that they are able to do their job as effectively and efficiently as possible. If we are thinking ahead to the need in due course for another Armed Forces Bill in 2021, what work is the MoD doing to think about the future, and is there some way in which your Lordships’ House can assist the Minister and the MoD to ensure that the Armed Forces have all the resources they require?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this instrument. The Labour Party supports Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, and I am sure that support goes across the whole House. My boss in the other place, Nia Griffith, used this order to comprehensively review the present position of the Armed Forces. I will restrict myself to quoting two paragraphs of her speech, the first on,
“forces numbers and the alarming downward trend across each of the services. When Labour left office in 2010, we had an Army of 102,000 … an RAF of 40,000 and a Royal Navy of 35,000. Now they are all substantially smaller. The Army and RAF have been cut by 25% each and the Navy is down by nearly 20%”.
The second paragraph states:
“The steady decline in service morale is a significant worry. The proportion of Army personnel reporting high morale in 2010 was 58% for both officers and … other ranks, but that fell to 46% for officers and … 36% for other ranks in 2018”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/2/19; cols. 1229-30.]
I have never had the privilege to serve full-time in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, but I have been involved with them over the years. I was taught that effective armed forces come from good equipment, good training and good morale, and the drop in morale since 2010 is sapping away the capability of our Armed Forces. I hope the Minister will agree and give some indication of how this will be addressed in the future.
I have just two specific questions about the law.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
My Lords, the figures that the noble Lord gave on the reduction in our Armed Forces are very worrying. I find it strange that under those circumstances the Secretary of State for Defence is recommending that our Armed Forces throughout the world should be increased. There seems to be some difference between his ambitions and what the Government are prepared to provide.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, that is not a question for me but for the Minister. What it brings out, given some of the contradictory statements by Her Majesty’s Government, is the need for a proper Armed Forces debate in the not too distant future—I think that is the view across the House.
I move on to my narrower questions. First, what happens if we do not pass this instrument? The Minister has anticipated that question substantially in his opening speech, but the one area he did not cover is what would happen to military personnel if it is not approved. What happens on simple issues such as whether they are paid and whether their accommodation is still available? The information he gave us earlier was all about the maintenance of discipline, which we can all understand. But we also have to recognise that we may be unabling the continued proper employment of personnel by passing this order.
The order and the Act that we are keeping alive are about the law. The one area that I have never really managed to understand is this: by what authority does a member of the Armed Forces use lethal force? To put it more directly, when that person kills someone, why is that not murder? Is the explanation different when war has been or has not been declared? In particular, what is the legal position if they kill someone supporting the civil authority in the United Kingdom?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will of course do my best to answer all the questions that have been raised. I start with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, who gave us a most interesting exposition of his long experience, not only in relation to the Armed Forces but also as a law officer. Not unnaturally he homed in on the service justice review, which is being undertaken by His Honour Shaun Lyons, who, I am sure noble Lords will agree, has an excellent knowledge of criminal law and procedures, as well as having served in the Royal Navy as Chief Naval Judge Advocate. The review is covering all aspects of the service justice system, including court martial and the types of cases that it deals with, the summary hearing process, the service police and the Service Prosecuting Authority.
The policing aspects of the review are being led by Sir Jon Murphy, a former chief constable of Merseyside Police. The noble and learned Lord asked whether it was possible to see the conclusions of the report. The answer is, “Not yet”. The review is due to report in the spring. That will give us time to consider it and, if necessary, make plans for any legislative changes before the next Armed Forces Bill in 2020. As for consultation, there is no public consultation on the process, but Judge Lyons is consulting a wide range of stakeholders with an interest in the service justice system. Of course, he can be contacted by interested parties through the head of the review secretariat.
The noble and learned Lord asked in particular about the ability of the service justice system to deal with serious offences. As he will be aware, the service justice system is capable of dealing with the most serious offences, and has done so over the course of history. It has been held to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, both for investigations and prosecutions within the UK and abroad, where the civilian police do not have jurisdiction. We are, however, keen for the review to take a strategic look at all key aspects of the service justice system, and this is one of the issues being explored.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the use of majority verdicts under the current system. The Government, as he will be aware, have been successful in establishing, both in the European Court of Human Rights and in the civilian courts, that the court martial system is in principle safe, independent and impartial. The current system has been considered twice by the Court Martial Appeal Court in the last five years and was on both occasions held to be fair and safe. Noble Lords, and noble and learned Lords, will know that the Court Martial Appeal Court is made up of the same judges as sit in the civilian Court of Appeal. That Appeal Court has held that there is no ground for deciding that a verdict by simple majority is inherently unfair or unsafe. I am advised by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen that in Scotland a majority verdict of eight to seven in a murder case, for example, would be sufficient to convict an accused person. However, the Government recognise that there are differing views about the system of majority verdicts, and this is another issue that will be covered by the review.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for the compliments he paid me over the recent Written Answers that I was able to give him. I am glad that he found them helpful. He referred to the dreadful accident that I am sure we all remember involving the deaths of two RAF pilots in Scotland. I will take away the suggestion he made about the possibility of encouraging the process to move forward in Scotland. I would not wish to give a firm undertaking to that effect, because I do not want to do anything improper as regards undue influence on the Scottish Executive, but I undertake to take the point away.
The noble Lord asked me about Gibraltar and the jurisdiction over Gibraltar in relation to this order. The Armed Forces (Gibraltar) Act was passed by the Gibraltar Parliament on 8 November 2018—very recently. It came into law on 10 December 2018. The Act gives effect in Gibraltar law to certain provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006, and Gibraltar wishes to make its own provisions in relation to that Act. Of course, we continue to work with Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar on the inclusion of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment within the Armed Forces Act 2006 service discipline regime to ensure that a discipline system is put in place that meets the needs of the regiment. The noble Lord also asked whether there had been any consultation on the order. There has been no public consultation but, as a matter of routine, the Armed Forces are consulted in relation to legislation that affects the service.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked what point we had reached in relation to an issue that he has very effectively championed in this House on more than one occasion: the vexed issue of the challenge in recent years to the principle of combat immunity. This has created considerable legal uncertainty about liability in combat situations and the risk that we may be moving towards the judicialisation of war, if I can put it that way. We want to introduce better combat compensation for those injured in combat operations and for the families of those killed. The public consultation closed on 23 February 2017. Therefore, we have consulted and are still carefully considering the views expressed during the consultation and will be publishing a response.
The proposal that we are advancing is that compensation would be paid at the same level as court damages, which can often be substantially greater than awards under the Armed Forces compensation scheme. Our aim is to ensure that those who have risked their lives in the most challenging of circumstances should be put in the best possible financial position quickly. That last word is one of the operative words, because some of these cases have a tendency to drag on and it is immensely upsetting to the individual or their family—and many times to both. The vast majority of compensation paid in these circumstances currently is not as a result of MoD negligence. These proposals are aimed at providing combat compensation to those who have suffered in the most extreme circumstances. We will announce further proposals in due course and I hope to have further news before too long on that front for the noble and gallant Lord.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked what arrangements involving the Armed Forces are being considered for the case of a no-deal Brexit. She will remember, I am sure, that on 18 December last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that approximately 3,500 service personnel would be held on standby to ensure that defence resources were available to support the wider Government to implement their no-deal Brexit contingency plans, if required. In headline terms, the prudent standby package will comprise approximately 3,500 personnel at varying levels of readiness, including niche capabilities such as military working dogs. No defence estate is ring-fenced at this time as it is anticipated that there will be spare capacity available during spring 2019 to provide a warehousing/storage function, if that is required. Similarly, it is judged that in extremis a request for defence strategic transport capability could be accommodated by existing capacity.
In addition to the prudent standby package, defence has also been making available military planning expertise to support other departments with their Brexit contingency plans. To date, we have provided 28 military planners to a number of departments across Whitehall. I hope that that outline is helpful to the noble Baroness.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Will the Minister bear in mind, before deploying military forces to deal with possible civil unrest arising from Brexit, that the deployment by Winston Churchill as Home Secretary of troops to Tonypandy, who never got involved in that strike, is so built into people’s memories that it was resurrected only a week ago?
Earl Howe
I assure the noble Lord that we are only too aware of the point he has raised. I think there is common to us all an antipathy to seeing large numbers of Armed Forces personnel on our streets, so to the extent that that can be avoided, it will be. However, it is prudent nevertheless to have the kinds of contingency plans that I have outlined.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked me, very properly, about the training that Armed Forces personnel receive before they are deployed to a combat zone. I can tell him that such training as he asked me about does take place; that is, training in international law, international humanitarian law and the law of armed combat, which of course governs all that we do, and indeed those key provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. We are as mindful as he would wish us to be of the need to maintain the kinds of standards that set an example to other nations in how our Armed Forces personnel should behave in such circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred to the fall in Armed Forces morale, as evidenced in recent surveys. It will not surprise him to hear that we take this extremely seriously. There is no single reason for that fall in morale, but we are aware that a number of factors play into it. That is why the chief of defence personnel is leading an important work strand in the Ministry of Defence known as the people programme, which involves looking at the terms and conditions of service—that is, pay and pensions—and accommodation arrangements for personnel; flexible service is another strand. A proposal is also being explored to use the early departure payment resource more effectively and efficiently, which, it is hoped, will address part of the issue we face over the retention of trained people. Therefore, we are not sitting back and doing nothing. However, it is true to say that at a time when the Army in particular is not deployed on an overseas operation in large numbers—although we are overseas in modest numbers—morale tends to suffer. Young men like an exciting challenge, and if they are sitting in barracks and simply training, there is a tendency for morale to dip. That is not to sound complacent, but I am advised that we have seen that in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked me by virtue of what law a soldier or serviceperson is empowered to kill. Of course, UK military personnel are always subject to UK law, even on overseas deployments, under the Armed Forces Act. As such, they have the right to use force in self-defence in accordance with UK domestic law. In the context of overseas armed conflicts, personnel may also use offensive force in accordance with their rules of engagement, which reflect the position under both domestic and international law, including the law of armed conflict. I hope that those answers will have been helpful to noble Lords. To the extent that I have not covered everything, I will of course write.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I wonder whether the noble Earl could be a bit more specific in the answer to the last question—not now, obviously, but I really would value a letter, because this is a key question. As we know, when it goes wrong, the alternative is that the person involved is indicted on a murder charge. When we give people the responsibility to use lethal force, it would not be unreasonable for them to know that there is a very solid background for them to do as they are ordered.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
Could the noble Earl answer a question that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, quite properly, was unable to answer, or did not want to answer? Why have we cut our Armed Forces to such a degree at the same time as the Defence Secretary wishes to expand our operations abroad?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Armed Forces are fulfilling all the tasks assigned to them, and it is right that we have an Army, a Navy and an Air Force no bigger and no smaller than we need. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is referring to the expansion of the activities of the Armed Forces rather than the size of the Armed Forces. The areas of operation must now take account of world events and changes in the geopolitical situation. That is why my right honourable friend has been talking about the discussions we are having in government to extend our naval presence across the world, and possibly even to look at further bases across the world. But we have no plans to expand the numbers in the Army beyond the target we have set ourselves—which is, broadly speaking, the numbers that we currently have. There is a problem with recruitment to the forces, which is perhaps a subject for a separate debate, but I do not foresee any large-scale expansion in numbers.
Judicial Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges’ Pension Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 January be approved.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the draft regulations before us today were laid on 7 January under the affirmative resolution procedure and relate to the contribution rates for members of two judicial pension schemes. The purpose of these draft regulations is to make provision to extend the current member contribution rates and earning thresholds in two different pension schemes until the next financial year. The two schemes are: the judicial pension scheme 2015, which was established by the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015 following wider public service pension reforms; and the fee-paid judicial pension scheme 2017, which was established by the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, following the Supreme Court decision in 2013 in the case of O’Brien, and related court decisions.
The reason for extending the existing rates is that the current provision for member contribution rates will expire on 31 March 2019. Therefore, the draft regulations are needed to make an amendment to specify the member contribution rates which will apply for the next year: for the period from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. The regulations will enable us to ensure the continuing operation of the schemes by deducting the appropriate member contributions for that year. Given that we propose to continue the same rates under the regulations, this amendment simply maintains the existing provision for a further year. This interim measure is required pending the completion of a broader process, which relates to the valuation of the judicial pension schemes. This process has been ongoing for a period of time, and the outcome of the valuation is yet to be determined.
Having referred to a link between the regulations and the broader valuations process, I should like to provide some brief background with regard to that matter. Following the reform of public service pension schemes in 2015, and as reflected in the current legislative framework, government departments are required to undertake valuations of their respective public service pension schemes every four years. This includes the Ministry of Justice in respect of the judicial pension schemes. The valuations of public service pension schemes do two things. One is to measure the cost of providing pension benefits to members of the schemes; and the second is to inform the future contribution rates paid into the schemes, by both the employer and members of the scheme.
Work has been under way on the first such valuations of public service pension schemes, and part of the initial stage is to analyse the provisional results produced for each respective scheme—which, as I mentioned, includes the judicial pension schemes. However, the current position is that the Government have recently announced a decision to pause part of the valuations of public service pension schemes. This is because the Government are seeking permission to appeal the Court of Appeal decision in the case of McCloud. Therefore, pausing the valuations is considered a prudent approach at this stage.
I now seek to explain the relevance of the Court of Appeal matter in McCloud. In December 2018, the Court of Appeal ruled that transitional protection offered to some individuals as part of the 2015 public service pension reforms amounted to unlawful discrimination—including the transitional protections in the judicial pension schemes. The issue relating to this transitional protection is that, as part of the 2015 reforms, most public servants and judges moved to a new career-average pension scheme. However, members within 10 years of their normal retirement age were protected and remained in the existing final salary schemes, together with members between 10 years and 13 years 6 months from their normal retirement age, who were given what was termed tapered protection, which is to remain in the existing scheme for a period of time before moving to the new scheme introduced by the reforms.
The Ministry of Justice has applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s ruling, and a decision on that application for permission is awaited. I understand that it is anticipated that it will be available in about July. As the legal process is ongoing and there is some uncertainty about the impact of the court ruling on wider pension reforms, it was considered prudent to pause that element of the valuation, which has the potential to affect member benefits and/or contribution rates in future. That element is referred to as the “cost control mechanism”, and is referred to in the Written Ministerial Statement issued by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 30 January this year.
I return to the draft regulations, which are the subject of this debate. There is a specific requirement to consult those affected by the draft regulations, as this proposal entails making a change to member contribution rates which are classed under the governing legislation as a protected element. Therefore, in accordance with the relevant requirements, we carried out a four-week consultation from 24 October to 21 November 2018. We consulted representative judicial organisations with a view to reaching agreement on the proposal. We received 23 responses to the consultation, of which the majority of respondents agreed with the proposal but two respondents did not. The two respondents who did not agree with the proposal also raised some points relating to wider pensions issues which were outside the scope of the consultation relating to the proposal for extending the current rates as an interim measure for a year. For example, they disagreed with the stepped approach for contribution rates and expressed preference for a flat rate to apply and for having a non-contributory scheme. We engaged further with the aim of reaching agreement, but unfortunately we were unable to secure the agreement of these two respondents.
In accordance with additional procedural requirements, we have also laid a report before Parliament setting out the rationale for this amendment. Furthermore, as the judicial pension schemes to which these regulations relate are UK wide, we have engaged with the devolved Administrations and kept them informed of progress. We will also continue to engage closely with them on further developments.
I conclude by reinforcing the point that the existing arrangements for member contribution rates will expire on 31 March 2019, in relation to the 2015 and 2017 judicial pension schemes. These draft regulations are therefore a necessary interim measure to continue the effective operation of these pension schemes, until a longer-term solution is put in place. Under this interim measure, the cost of accruing pension scheme benefits will remain the same for members of both schemes for the scheme year April 2019 to March 2020. If it is agreed that changes to member contribution rates—or other changes—are required in future, as a result of the valuation outcome, any changes that are agreed will be backdated until 1 April 2019, where it is appropriate to so do.
I hope noble Lords will agree that these regulations are an important and necessary interim measure to continue the arrangements for member contribution rates and for the effective operation of the judicial pension scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his careful exposition of the scheme and for the quotations from the report, which the Lord Chancellor made to Parliament, detailing the consultation. We cannot consider this interim proposal—this carry-over proposal—without reflecting that it is part of a complex situation with judicial pensions which causes a great deal of anxiety. Whenever you inquire of those involved in carrying out recruitment to the judiciary or of those who are applying, a number of issues are mentioned, such as the state of the court estate, but pensions come up every time, because of the bizarre and convoluted nature of the system which has resulted from the changes that have been described. The changes produce really bizarre situations where relatively junior members of the Bench find themselves with greater entitlements than those who have served for a number of years. One of the results of this is a deterrence to recruitment. In some cases, there is an incentive for retirement because some are better off retiring than remaining in the scheme.
In extending the present contribution rate for the next year, a number of things have to happen, including litigation. One can only express the hope that pensions cease to be a disincentive to recruitment, because the recruitment problems of the judiciary affect the ability of citizens of this country to obtain timely justice—quality is maintained, but timeliness can become a problem. They also affect the substantial export earnings of our courts and of the legal services which surround them. They are therefore pretty important. As I said, you cannot get into any discussion about judicial recruitment without the pensions issue arising. It would be good if the Government could sort that out.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, is it correct, from my scanning of the web as to what the dispute before the Court of Appeal, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, is about, that the taxpayer could potentially face a bill of upwards of £750 million if this case is lost? It seems to me to be an extremely high figure. I assume it is a calculation to do with the massive additions to pensions that would be required if all judges got the transitional relief which, at the moment, is only going to be afforded to a small proportion.
My second question makes an obvious point for somebody who is not a lawyer or a judge. Am I right in assuming that the judges who will sit on this case are adjudicating on their own pensions? In no other walk of life would that be considered a satisfactory arrangement. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us whether that is the case? If it is the case, what is the protection against judges simply, to be blunt, ruling in their own self-interest?
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, before my noble and learned friend answers that difficult question, I wonder whether he can help the House on a general question about judicial pensions and eligibility. Judges must now retire at the age of 70; there is strong feeling abroad that this often wastes judicial talent. In other fields, people often peak at 70 so a retirement age of 75 may be far more suitable, given that the same retirement age applies to magistrates, jurors and other people given the task of determining matters of justice.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in a crowded and noisy political landscape, it is easy to overlook the importance of protecting our judiciary and making adequate pensions provisions for our people. Forgive me for suggesting this, but this House is perhaps uniquely qualified to value the importance of both.
I begin by politely disagreeing with the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Adonis a moment ago. I have no concerns about the Supreme Court’s ability to deal with any disputes relating to judicial pensions. Of course, the Opposition do not seek to divide the House on the interim provision set out by the Minister but I want to take this opportunity to urge him not to kick the can down the road into next year and beyond. It is concerning that the Government have recently had a number of disputes of this kind with judges, including the defeat referred to earlier. I agree with a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, about the importance of a confident and, frankly, happy judiciary to which we can adequately recruit to protect our reputation as a rule-of-law nation, whether we are inside or outside the EU. We need to boost our judiciary’s morale now and for some years to come.
I agree with the one-year extension of this scheme but concerns over judicial pensions need to be considered in the broader context of the austerity measures that hit the Ministry of Justice particularly hard, including budget cuts of a third since 2010. Savings made in the revised pensions schemes are just one area where spending has been seriously squeezed. Devastating reductions to the court estate, further proposals for the relocation of case management functions, listings and scheduling, new off-site service centres and service centres supervised by authorised staff, not judges, are some of the issues we discussed last year in the context of the then courts and tribunals Bill.
We on these Benches are concerned about the judgment to which the Minister referred. A finding against the Government relating to unlawful age discrimination is very concerning. Going forward, I urge the Government, in as friendly a manner as possible, to consider the acute shortage of High Court judges. As I imagine many people in the Chamber will be aware, senior lawyers and practitioners are not putting themselves forward for High Court appointment—including some highly qualified people who would be keen to complete their prestigious careers in what is a vital public service in this country. Too many positions have been left vacant for years with the very slight prospect of them being filled in the next few years. Time and again one hears that this recruitment crisis is in no small way affected by the change in judicial pensions.
We must ensure confidence in our legal system, perhaps more than ever in the times we are all attempting to navigate now. We need our judicial Benches—the entire judiciary, whether tribunal panel members, chairs, district judges, county court judges or circuit judges—to be made up of exceptional individuals. Those stressful and expert roles need to be properly remunerated for that to continue. I urge the Minister and the rest of the Government to sit down promptly with judges and have a serious discussion about how to fund that vital part of our constitution going forward, and how to boost morale and recruitment to our judiciary. With that plea to the Government, there will be no objection from these Benches to this interim measure.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak but perhaps I should. I declare an interest as having been Lord Chief Justice when the shocking new arrangements for the judicial pension were imposed on the judiciary unilaterally by the Government. There was consultation—of the kind that enables the Government to do exactly what they like—but it was imposed on the judiciary. There was a unilateral change to the pension arrangements under which a significant proportion of the judiciary were working if they were below a certain age and had not given so many years’ service. The basis on which they joined the judiciary, which was clearly understood, was changed. That represented a betrayal. It greatly damaged confidence in the whole idea of a successful practitioner—a barrister or solicitor—seeking judicial appointment. If the Government could unilaterally change the arrangements, there was no point. We still suffer the consequences of that. There is nothing wrong with the present measure we are considering, but the consequences of what happened between 2010 and 2014 are with us still.
If I may answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about the arrangements that are currently before and have been before the courts, the judges trying those cases are not those who will have been affected by these dramatic changes. The various matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, are well known. There is no point using this opportunity to stand on a hobby-horse to repeat them, but they do not go away. That is an issue the ministry has to grapple with as soon as practicable.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged for the contributions that have been made. I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and I acknowledge that pension issues have created very real issues about recruitment, particularly to the High Court Bench. That is something of which we are conscious and have in mind and under consideration going forward. The whole question of the terms and conditions on which we seek to appoint the judiciary is critical, and I acknowledge the need to ensure that we maintain a judiciary whose expertise and integrity are regarded as pre-eminent. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, touched on the value—if you can put it that way—of legal services in an export sense. It is estimated to be in the region of £4.5 billion, so it is a significant matter in that context alone; but of course, it has a much wider resonance and importance than that.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, observed, those hearing this matter in the Supreme Court are not impacted by the transitional provisions we are concerned with in the McCloud case and the related Miller case, which is still to be heard. In any event, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, of the judicial oath and the confidence maintained in the integrity of our judiciary, which is entirely justified.
Regarding the potential cost of the McCloud decision, it is a matter of speculation. It does not refer just to judicial pensions; it is also relevant to firefighters.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am an avid reader of the Law Society Gazette, which says that £750 million has been provided for in the department’s own accounts as an insurance against the loss of this case. Is that correct?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not in a position to comment on that figure, but if the noble Lord is concerned about it, I will write to him after seeing what the position is in the accounts, as I do not have them to hand.
The issue of the age of retirement has been debated, and we are conscious of it. Many noble and learned Lords who find themselves retired from the Bench are able to make a convincing contribution to the affairs of this House for many years after their retirement, and it seems in one sense unfortunate that we cannot harness that expertise on the Bench as well as off it.
This is a purely interim measure, pending the final valuation which will follow the decision in McCloud, and we will therefore be taking forward the question of contributions as soon as that valuation process is completed. There is a wider interest—expressed, for example by the noble Lord, Lord Beith—in the whole question of these pension reforms, and it is underlined by the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. We have a scheme, we are implementing it and taking it forward, but this is an interim measure to maintain contributions, not to increase them.
Motion agreed.
Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 January be approved.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, this draft instrument forms part of the ongoing work to ensure that, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, our legal system will continue to work effectively for our citizens. It is solely related to no-deal preparations. If Parliament approved the withdrawal agreement, which includes an implementation period, and passes the necessary legislation to implement that agreement, the Government would defer the coming into force of this instrument until the end of that implementation period. Once a deal on our future relationship with the EU had been reached, we would then review whether this instrument needed to be amended or revoked.
Lord Beith (LD)
Is it the Government’s policy, if they are negotiating in a transition period because they have got an agreement, to seek to continue the kind of provisions that are in these regulations when we come to the end of the transition period?
Lord Keen of Elie
The Government—in the event that we have a withdrawal agreement—will enter into negotiations on our future relationship with the EU, and that will include a desire to ensure that we have addressed the full panoply of judicial co-operation issues that exist at the present time. We cannot say unilaterally that we will secure all of those, but clearly we have an interest in carrying on that negotiation. That is why, at the end of any implementation period, it may be that we can simply revoke these instruments without them ever having to be applied.
The instrument relates to mediation, which is, as noble Lords will be aware, a structured process whereby the parties to a dispute attempt on a voluntary basis to reach an agreement to settle their dispute with the assistance of a mediator, but without a court needing to rule on the dispute. In the civil and commercial fields, such a dispute covers a wide range of contractual and other issues, but also touches on family issues such as access to children.
In 2008, the European Council agreed what it termed a “cross-border mediation directive” which sought to harmonise certain aspects of mediation in relation to EU member states’ cross-border disputes. I should note that the directive does not apply to Denmark, so when I refer to “member states” in this context, I am not including Denmark, which has an opt-out under Protocol 22 of the Lisbon treaty. The aim of the mediation directive is to promote the use of mediation in such cross-border disputes. An EU cross-border dispute can be one between parties who are domiciled, or habitually resident, in two or more different member states, or it can be a dispute where judicial or arbitration proceedings are started in a member state other than the one where the parties are living or domiciled.
The United Kingdom then enacted domestic legislation which gave effect to certain aspects of the mediation directive. I say “certain aspects” because, in many areas—such as ensuring the quality of mediation, and information about mediation for the public—our existing arrangements already met the requirements or standards set out in the 2008 directive. However, in order to implement the directive, the UK had to introduce some new rules for EU cross-border mediations involving UK parties. These new rules first specified that if a time limit, or limitation period, in domestic law during which a claim could be brought in a court or tribunal expires during the mediation process, the parties can still seek a remedy through the courts or tribunals should the mediation not be successful. Secondly, the new rules defined the rights of a mediator, or someone involved in the administration of mediation, to resist giving evidence in civil or judicial proceedings arising from information disclosed during mediation. Various changes were also made to court rules to supplement these changes and to implement the requirements of the mediation directive relating to the enforceability of agreements resulting from mediation.
Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the legislation implementing the mediation directive is retained EU law upon the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU. However, should the UK leave the EU without an agreement on civil judicial co-operation, the reciprocity on which the directive relies would be lost. So, even if we were to continue to apply the enhanced EU rules to EU cross-border disputes, we would be unable to ensure that the remaining EU member states applied the rules of the directive to cross-border disputes involving parties based in the United Kingdom, or to judicial proceedings or arbitration taking place in the United Kingdom.
Accordingly, and in line with the Government’s general approach to civil judicial co-operation in the event of no deal, this instrument will repeal, subject to transitional provisions, the legislation that gives effect to the mediation directive’s rules on confidentiality and extension of limitation periods. It amends the relevant retained EU law in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and in Scotland in so far as it relates to reserved matters. Separate instruments will amend the related court rules in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Other legislation implementing the directive is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Government, and I understand that they have decided to bring forward their own legislation in this area.
This instrument is necessary to fix the statute book in the event of a no-deal exit. We have assessed its impact and have published an impact assessment. By repealing the domestic legislation which gave effect to the mediation directive, we will ensure clarity in the law applying to mediations between UK parties and parties domiciled or habitually resident in EU member states. We will also avoid a situation where mediations of an EU cross-border dispute conducted in the UK are subject to different—and arguably more favourable—rules on confidentiality or limitation than other UK mediations.
As I indicated earlier, the instrument will change the rules applying only to what are currently EU cross-border mediations, and then only in two respects: time limits and confidentiality. On time limits, claimants involved in such mediations who no longer have the benefit of an extended limitation period would, if they wanted more time to allow for mediation to take place, have to make an application to the court to stay proceedings and would have to pay a fee. We are unable to assess how many cases this would affect. Limitation periods can extend from three years, to six years, to 10 years in some instances, and can either bar a case from being brought or extinguish the claim in its entirety. They are extensive periods in any event, but they may be impacted by these changes
Overall, the instrument will ensure that, post exit, UK-EU mediations are treated consistently under the law with mediations between UK domiciled or habitually resident parties, or UK parties and parties domiciled or habitually resident in non-EU third countries.
I have set out to deal with the issue of EU cross-border mediations because, without a deal in place on 29 March 2019, such mediations involving UK-domiciled parties would no longer be subject to the mediation directive rules in EU member states. The regulations now moved will fix deficiencies and ensure that both the courts and UK citizens have clear and effective rules to follow in such circumstances.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
One of the most difficult issues that we grappled with during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was child abductions and disputes about child custody. I assume that this affects that issue; can the Minister tell us how? The single most disturbing aspect that came out of that is that it might be harder to deal with cross-border issues of child abduction after Brexit. I am keen to understand whether this maintains the status quo as far as possible. Does this mean that effective remedies will be available to the court to deal rapidly with issues of child abduction?
Lord Keen of Elie
First, this instrument is not concerned with the role of the court: it is concerned with the role of mediation outside the court. Secondly, it is not usual to discover mediation as a form of resolving a child abduction case. The very nature of an abduction is such that the parties are not amenable to agreeing a voluntary mediation to resolve the matter. We have already made provision for civil orders in relation to child abduction.
With regard to criminal orders, it is impossible to replicate the existing provisions of EU law because, under the relevant provisions of EU law, an EU court would not recognise an order from a UK court in any event, and therefore it would give false hope to a party to grant them an order that was not enforceable. Overall, therefore, my answer to the noble Lord is that mediation does not impact directly on the sort of issue that has been raised. We recognise the importance of trying to ensure, as far as possible, that there are means of enforcing child abduction orders. The only qualification if we leave without a deal is that there would be no right of the originating court to make an order that trumps the order of the court in the country to which the child has been abducted. That is simply because in the absence of reciprocity, it is not possible to make such an order enforceable. Otherwise, my understanding is that we will be able to proceed.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I think I am right in saying that we are party to a treaty about child abduction that extends well beyond the EU. I have had experience of a case involving abduction where one of the parties was resident in Australia and the other one in Norway, which, of course, are outside the EU network. We have rules about the speed at which cases can be dealt with, but the basic treaty arrangements are unaffected.
Lord Keen of Elie
The noble and learned Lord is quite right. The Brussels convention on these matters reflects the terms of the Hague convention to a large extent. The one qualification is the element to which I referred about the trumping order, which is not available under the Hague convention. However, it works very effectively in respect of non-EU states and there is no reason it should not continue to operate. I believe that a week or so ago, I addressed these matters in this House when moving other regulations relating to exit, so I hope I have not contradicted myself since then.
Finally, although the confidentiality provisions in the EU directive will no longer be law in the context of mediation in England and Wales, it is usual for parties, when agreeing to mediation, to have an agreement on confidentiality as well. Indeed, even in the absence of such agreement, there is a provision from the High Court in the case Farm Assist Ltd in 2009, which says that such a confidentiality obligation would be implied in any event. It would, of course, be subject to the interests of justice, but we are not going to lose entirely the benefit of the confidentiality provisions if we leave without a deal. In these circumstances, therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Beith
My Lords, this is another example of something we are losing, although in this instance the amount is relatively small. As the Minister has explained, this concerns mainly time and the confidentiality element as it is currently provided, and there are some alternatives to that.
It is extraordinary in that it repeals provisions that would be continued under the withdrawal Act—which we have already passed—in numerous other statutes, including the Equalities Act 2010, so we are bound to look at it suspiciously for that reason. The Government’s argument against continuing these provisions without guaranteed reciprocity—I accept that the Government cannot guarantee reciprocity—is that applying them unilaterally would result in preferential treatment for parties involved in EU cross-border mediations that they believe would no longer be justified when the UK ceases to be an EU member state.
If, however, the provisions can be used to assist in a mediation and the other EU state involved is willing to observe a reciprocal arrangement, why should we deny that benefit? What is the unfairness of that? There are many instances in which we have better arrangements with some states than with others in judicial matters, and in the case of our European neighbours it would be surprising if we could not have more arrangements facilitated than apply in other cases. We do not say that person X is being treated unfairly because their attempt to resolve a matter by mediation relates to a state that is not helpful, whereas person B is in a mediation involving a state with which we are able to make some reciprocal arrangement.
The Government have taken the view with most—although not all—of these statutory instruments that where we cannot have reciprocity we cannot have anything. That is not necessarily the case. The Minister kindly answered the question I asked him earlier in a way that seemed to imply that the Government, if there is an agreement during the transition period, would seek to negotiate back into existence something along these lines. Of course, during the transition period the provisions would continue to operate.
What if there is a no-deal Brexit, which looks increasingly likely? There is no reason why the Government should not seek to facilitate mediation with our former fellow EU states as a matter of policy. Clearly I am arguing that they should have a policy of negotiating during the transition for such arrangements—or even if there is no deal. The atmosphere might be less conducive but at some stage why should we not try to resurrect provisions of this kind?
Although, as I have said, the impact of removing these provisions is relatively small, it is another example of an area in which we ought to try to continue arrangements that are beneficial to people who have real problems to solve. Where possible, we should do so by direct agreement with the EU and, if not, by agreement with individual states.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, this instrument sits against a backdrop of completely inadequate planning for justice co-operation after Brexit. The danger is that that inadequate planning could put vulnerable people in our society at risk. Across Parliament, including from the Justice Select Committee, there has been concern that the Ministry of Justice has failed to provide sufficient detail or certainty about how co-operation on justice will be managed after we exit the European Union.
As we all know, we currently benefit from well-established, frequently updated and comprehensive reciprocal justice arrangements within the EU. Without an agreement with our European partners on what the future of those reciprocal arrangements looks like, people forced to go to court or mediation to protect their rights can face extremely damaging consequences.
We on this side of the House have consistently said that Brexit must not be used to lower standards or reduce rights. There is a fear of that. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, is a little sanguine about how significant that is in this instrument, but I am a bit less so. It nevertheless breaches that principle about a reduction in standards and rights.
Noble Lords will recall that the instrument was laid for sifting by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on 16 November last year. The European Statutory Instruments Committee recommended that it be upgraded to the affirmative procedure because of its large volume of amendments to primary and secondary legislation, but also because it could diminish rights by disengaging from European Union obligations.
I may have misheard the Minister. He referred to an impact assessment. I do not know whether that included a consultation or whether he is instead relying on the Government’s general civil judicial co-operation framework. If it is the latter, the European Union Sub-Committee on Justice found that the framework contained little detail on how the Government’s aims for co-operation would be achieved.
This statutory instrument will repeal legislation enshrining the mediation directive. The directive extends time limits for bringing some civil claims—including child maintenance claims and employment tribunals—to enable mediation. I am sure we all agree that this is a very good thing. The directive is one of many examples whereby we have raised legal standards and protections across Europe through co-operation with our European partners.
The European Statutory Instruments Committee considered whether this instrument could diminish rights and found that it repeals legislation that extends the time limit for bringing certain claims in civil courts and employment tribunals to enable mediation. Shortening time limits in that regard can have significant consequences, prohibiting parties from reaching mediated solutions in child contact cases, for example. This statutory instrument clearly breaches the principle that standards should not be lowered; it lowers the standards for enabling cross-border mediation from the higher EU standard to a lower international one.
The Government accept that the UK could unilaterally continue to apply the mediation directive post exit but have decided not to do so. The noble and learned Lord will correct me, but my understanding of the Government’s position is that, if someone wants to stop a time limit running in mediation, they should issue proceedings before a court and apply to stay or stop those proceedings. That is unfair and unrealistic for so many people in their current financial circumstances, let alone in the context of the obliteration of civil legal aid, which we have discussed in your Lordships’ House so many times.
Put simply, this statutory instrument does what Ministers promised—in this House and elsewhere—would not happen: it breaches the principle of not reducing standards in people’s access to justice. That is very disappointing.
Lord Keen of Elie
On that last issue, I am somewhat puzzled by the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is endeavouring to make in this context. The time limits we are talking about are measured in years—three, four, six or 10 years. If a party is intent on mediation before they raise proceedings, it is unlikely that they will be so disinclined or uninterested in the issue that they will wait years before even attempting to go forward with mediation. Let us be realistic and practical. However, where they have already commenced proceedings, they may then be directed by their lawyers or others to consider mediation as an alternative means of resolving the dispute. In those circumstances, they have already dealt with the time limit by raising the legal proceedings. Pending mediation, all they need to do, if necessary, is stay those proceedings—or sist them, in Scottish terms—putting them on hold while the mediation process is carried on. I do not see that this is a diminution of rights at all.
I come to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith. On the question of no deal, I understand his point entirely. If no deal occurs—which nobody wants—it will not be a case of switching off the lights and leaving the building. Clearly, we will want to continue discussing with our immediate European neighbours how we can best resolve any differences between us on judicial co-operation. One would hope that that would happen in any event, but I note the noble Lord’s point and cannot disagree. It might be more difficult in a no-deal scenario than during an implementation period, when we are negotiating a future agreement between ourselves and the EU 27.
On another point, it is not an issue only of preferential treatment—that is, the idea that parties from the EU would somehow have preference over those in the UK. There is a danger that we might mislead people if we do not deal with the directive provisions in this way. People may continue to believe that they are protected from having to raise proceedings beyond a limitation period because of the EU directive. We will have to make it clear to people that this will not be the case.
There is not the same issue with regard to confidentiality. The absolute confidentiality imposed by the directive is not immediately replicated in the law of England and Wales, but there is the usual provision for contractual agreement of confidentiality of the mediation process. In any event, as I sought to indicate, there is at least one High Court decision from 2009 that says that, even in the absence of an express contractual term, the court would readily imply an issue of confidence with regard to mediation.
In a way, then, the impact will be minimal, but I do not dismiss it out of hand. We are conscious that we are moving away from an EU-wide provision on mediation and we have to accommodate that at present. Our hope is that we will move into an implementation period when we continue to enjoy this reciprocity. We hope that, in due course and in the course of such an implementation period, we will agree future judicial co-operation, but that will require reciprocity. In these circumstances, I beg to move.
Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 January be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, if it is convenient, in moving this Motion I shall speak also to the draft Road Vehicle Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. These draft regulations will be made, for the most part, under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and—in the case of the type-approval SI to align the definitions of type-approval certification used in Northern Ireland with the rest of the UK—under the powers conferred by the European Communities Act. These regulations will be required if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal.
I shall speak first to the type-approval regulations. Currently, motor vehicles can be registered and placed on the UK market only if they have a valid EU type approval. The legislation governing this is a mix of domestic and directly applicable EU regulations. Of the two SIs, the draft type-approval regulations were put forward originally as a negative SI and considered by the sifting committees of both Houses. Both committees recommended that they be upgraded to affirmative, given the potential impact on manufacturers. I thank the committees for their considerations of this and other statutory instruments.
The draft type-approval regulations under consideration ensure that we will continue to have control over the registration of vehicles in the UK while also ensuring that we minimise the burden on manufacturers. The SI achieves this by amending the Road Traffic Act 1988 in GB and the Road Traffic Order 1981 in Northern Ireland to create a UK approval scheme, enabling the Vehicle Certification Agency, the VCA, to issue provisional UK approvals to manufacturers holding a valid EU type approval, without requiring additional, costly retesting.
In addition, the SI amends the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to provide that vehicles entering the UK after exit day can be registered only if they have a UK approval. Maintaining control over registration ensures that in the event of another VW emissions scandal, we would be able to prevent those vehicles from being put on the road. Minor amendments are proposed to the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2009, and to the three retained frameworks for motorcycles, agricultural vehicles and engines for non-road mobile machinery, to ensure that this retained EU legislation will remain operable after we leave the EU.
I assure noble Lords that we have consulted widely since last autumn on our proposals. This has been primarily with the major trade associations, such as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, as well as smaller, more specialised trade associations, such as the Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle Convertors Association.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this SI relates to the type approval process and involves harmonised standards on safety and environmental protection, which are regularly updated. I understand and appreciate that action is needed to maintain standards in future, but I have concerns. Unlike other SIs, in respect of which it is agreed that we will continue as a nation to accept EU standards, in this case the UK will no longer accept EU approvals when vehicles are registered.
The SI establishes a UK system of approvals. There is an interim arrangement for a maximum of two years, after which there will be a comprehensive review and reworking of UK type-approval arrangements. The legislation is planned for the middle of this year. This came as a bit of a surprise when I read this because I was not aware that the Government were thinking of a whole new system. What do the Government have in mind? Clearly, ideas are pretty well developed, otherwise the Government would not be talking of bringing in legislation a few months.
There is the issue of uncertainty for manufacturers. There will be additional costs when working to two different standards. Surely, at the current moment of maximum uncertainty, it is not a good idea to add to that uncertainty. Changing the system undermines the assurance given to manufacturers of a smooth transition on standards. Even more surprising, the Government proposed originally that this SI should be dealt with through the negative procedure; it is here only because the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments recommended that the affirmative procedure be used.
The EU type-approval frameworks affect passenger and goods vehicles, motorbikes, agricultural and forestry vehicles, and engines for non-road mobile machinery. That is a pretty comprehensive range of products. Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum specifies that EU approvals will not be accepted in the UK without scrutiny and can be rejected. Perhaps the Minister can explain why we are not prepared to accept EU standards. EU standards on these issues are generally agreed to be the highest in the world and are being adopted by, for example, the Chinese as the exemplar of best practice. Why do we think there might be a problem with these standards?
The SI will give the VCA the power to act on evidence of compliance problems. Is the VCA not able to act in the current situation if it thinks there are compliance issues? Manufacturers that already have EU approval will be able to apply for provisional UK approval. While this will avoid double testing, it does not avoid double bureaucracy. The Minister may well say that all of this is to ensure higher standards. However, in paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, reference is made to the National Small Series Type Approval, operated by the VCA, which allows the relaxation of standards for UK companies converting or building low numbers of vehicles. Paragraph 7.8 states that the scheme would be of limited use to manufacturers after Brexit because of limits on production. I cannot quite understand that. I read it several times but I could not understand why it would be unfair after Brexit but has been acceptable up to now. How has this situation changed? I was even more surprised by the Government’s response, which was to arbitrarily double the limits on production for this group of vehicles until the end of the year. Why? Why is it reasonable to double the number of vehicles this year but not next year? I cannot get any sense of the reasoning behind this. Although this is a small number of vehicles, they are being given an exemption from environmental limits, and there will therefore be an impact on emissions as a result.
Paragraph 7.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum makes the point that this SI will allow,
“new, full type approvals to continue to be issued”,
for motorbikes, agricultural vehicles and engines for machinery. We now have a difference in policy. In fact, we have three different policy approaches in this one SI. We have non-acceptance of EU approvals, so you have to get UK approval. Then, another section accepts EU approval, although it admits that it could be misleading in the short term. There is also a specific change of policy regarding manufacturers and operators that deal with small numbers of vehicles.
Even worse than having three different policies in one SI is the lack of formal consultation. The section dealing with impact says that more staff will have to be recruited to the VCA. How many and at what cost? It also says:
“Provisional UK type approval is being offered free of charge”.
I accept that that is very good for manufacturers, but can the Minister explain how much of a subsidy that will require from the Government?
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She cited the fact that there would be no formal consultation on this SI, as indeed on any other SI that has come before the House. Did she note that paragraph 10.1 also said that,
“the intention is to ensure that, as far as possible, the status quo is maintained”?
The noble Baroness has done a very good job in the last 10 minutes of explaining why the status quo is not being maintained in key respects. There is a contradiction in paragraph 10.1 regarding the justification the Government have given for not consulting. According to that justification, they should have made no changes at all but continued with the existing type-approval regime. Given that the Government have made those changes, and given the statement that they themselves made in paragraph 10.1, there should surely have been consultation.
Baroness Randerson
I agree with the noble Lord that there should be consultation, because the Government themselves have admitted that there are aspects that could be misleading. That is what they say in the EM.
It is my understanding that gaining EU type approval is pretty expensive. It would be useful to know at least approximately how much it costs, so we can get some view of what the Government will have to undertake in future.
I turn now to the SI on emissions. These EU regulations establish mandatory fleet average CO2 emissions targets for all cars and vans in the EU, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. They establish targets by which manufacturers must abide, based on a formula, and levy fines for non-compliance. EU states record and report new EU vehicle registrations to the EEA, which leads to the publication of emissions performance for individual manufacturers. Are we going to carry on with this system on a UK basis? Powers are being moved to the Secretary of State, but will the system of publication of performance continue? It is really important for public confidence. Small manufacturers can apply for derogations. In the SI, small manufacturers are defined as producing 300,000 cars and 22,000 vans. Are the Government going to divide that by 28 or something, to redefine a small manufacturer, or will the definition of a small manufacturer across the whole of the EU apply within the UK, in which context it will hardly be small?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for doing an excellent, forensic job of exposing the issues in this statutory instrument. These entirely substantiate her point about the failure to consult, given the potentially far-reaching nature of the changes. Her last, broader point about the impact of Brexit on the motor industry is, of course, extremely well made.
If we were not in the midst of a very deep Brexit crisis, Parliament and the Government would be overwhelmed at the moment by the controversy and issues raised by the closure of the Swindon plant by Honda. This, together with Nissan’s decision to massively scale back production in Sunderland, amounts to a wholesale disinvestment by Japanese companies now taking place in this country. Indeed, one can join up the dots with Hitachi, a company I know well because I played a big part in persuading it to come here and start manufacturing trains 10 years ago. It has now pulled out of nuclear reactor manufacture at the plant in north Wales because of uncertainty in the decision-making process directly related to Brexit. It is deeply unhappy about what might happen in the European rail market at the moment. I am not absolutely sure that it will be staying in the UK for the long term either. We might be on the verge of seeing the reversal of 30 years of industrial policy in this country, all caused by Brexit, and this unravelling could have a lot further to go if the Brexit process proceeds.
The broader context of Brexit is dire for the motor industry, but the point narrowly focused on these regulations, made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is that we should not be doing anything with the regulatory framework that discourages the import and export of cars. I should have thought that the Minister, for whom I have a high regard, would accept that as a starting principle. I know that she, like me, is unhappy about the whole Brexit process and I am not expecting her to justify it in her reply to this debate: I suspect we would be in a large measure of agreement. If she accepts the starting point that there should be no change to the regulatory environment—certainly none imposed by the United Kingdom, because that would be an act of self-mutilation—can she explain more fully the two paragraphs that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, highlighted? These also struck me as I read them; they are paragraph 7.8 and paragraph 2.4. I have nothing to add to the noble Baroness’s remarks about paragraph 7.8. Like her, I simply do not understand it. If the doubling of the production limits referred to is necessary to ensure the continuation of trading conditions until the end of 2019, why is it not necessary beyond the end of 2019? That seems a straightforward question.
The point about paragraph 2.4 is that I simply do not understand the policy, because it is a policy change. I shall read the paragraph, because there are so many great minds in the House that they might be able to help the House before the noble Baroness replies. It concerns type approvals, a critical issue for the registration of cars, and it reads as follows:
“The UK will no longer accept EU-27 approvals when motor vehicles are registered, other than for motor vehicles that are in the UK prior to Exit day. A process will be established to issue UK approvals for holders of EU-27 approvals. Existing EU approvals issued by the UK’s VCA will remain valid. All of this is an interim arrangement valid for a maximum of two years, pending a comprehensive review and re-working of the UK’s type approval arrangements (with legislation planned for mid-2019)”.
As I read that, the implications seemed profound and I have some questions about it. If the aim is to have continuity, the obvious question is: why make any change at all? A golden rule in my experience of government, though it is being repudiated by the present Government all the time, is, “Where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change”. Indeed, I always thought that was a cardinal Tory rule—it is Edmund Burke. So if the aim is to maintain the status quo, which is surely in the interest of the United Kingdom because we have such a large car manufacturing hub, why make any changes at all? Why not simply say that the United Kingdom will accept EU 27 type approvals hereafter?
Secondly, unless I have misunderstood it, paragraph 2.4 seems to envisage a kind of zombie land for vehicles. It says that the UK will no longer accept EU 27 type approvals for vehicles that are in the UK, registered after exit day—that is my understanding—and a process will be established to decide what the regime will be after two years, which stands to reason because it would take two years to decide what that process is. Therefore, it is my understanding that that could lead to retrospective action because there will still be vehicles coming into the UK with those type approvals in that two-year period. However, it says that the UK will no longer accept those approvals, other than for motor vehicles that are in the UK prior to exit. If the United Kingdom chooses to change the rules, it might create a category of vehicles that have perfectly legally received type approval after exit day but which the Government retrospectively decide no longer meet the approvals. On my reading of paragraph 2.4, that must be a possibility. If that is not the case, why does it not say that the UK will accept EU 27 approvals until the new regime comes into force, which will be after the comprehensive review? Is the Minister following my point? I do not understand what looks to be a zombie period between the completion of the review and exit day.
Thirdly, why is the planned legislation necessary unless the United Kingdom is planning to set up a wholly new and separate type-approval regime? Surely, the only reason for setting up such a regime is that we envisage that our type-approval regime and standards might be different—potentially radically different—from those on the continent.
This leads to my fourth question, which is the big industrial policy question underlying all this: if we diverge from the EU 27 type-approval regime, as appears to be envisaged by paragraph 2.4, will that not, in itself, create a significant impediment to trade? Is that not profoundly against the interests of the United Kingdom, given that we are a massive exporter of cars to the European Union? It may be that all this is redundant because the devastation that Brexit causes to our car industry—just to extrapolate from the events of the last month—is so great that we no longer export large numbers of cars to the EU. It may be that by destroying this great industry we do not have the problem of continuing to mimic EU 27 type approvals.
However, many of us in the House hope that we will continue to have a car manufacturing base in this country after Brexit. Surely, it is in our interests that we do not erect new barriers to trade in cars and that we maintain the status quo as far as possible. In which case, paragraph 2.4 appears to act contrary to that policy, unless the noble Baroness can reassure me in her reply that my concerns are entirely misconceived.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, I, too, appreciate the explanations given by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about her anxiety about a number of key features of this statutory instrument. I am commenting on the second of the two documents rather than the first one, although the first has a number of significant question marks. I thank the noble Baroness for her thoughts on those matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said in agreeing with the noble Baroness, a number of questions need to be answered comprehensively today by the Minister.
However, it is not just that but, once again, the anxiety we all feel about the huge accumulation of SIs going through inadequately, badly considered, all in a rush, in not enough time to be considered properly. It comes back to the much more fundamental issue that one always needs to remember in this whole business, of the flaws in the original referendum and the failure to prepare properly immediately after the result for all the things that are now flowing through in the last minute—literally the last few weeks—in the painful process of the disintegration of this country’s membership of the EU. This is now causing more anxiety and concern among many members of the public as they wake up to these realities, not having been given any guidance by the Government immediately after the result. It is not a matter of disrespecting the result of that vote. We know that it was flawed for various reasons. The construction of the referendum was wrong. British citizens who had lived in other European countries for more than 15 years were excluded automatically, so were the youngest voters, who should be entitled to be on the register for future occasions. There were many other mistakes as well. It was really the fault of the Government immediately afterwards—
Viscount Eccles (Con)
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, this does not seem to be much to do with this statutory instrument.
Lord Dykes
It is indeed because I am coming on to that in a second, but I am just giving noble Lords the background to this. It needs to be repeated again and again. It is quite legitimate for me to say these things and I will come to the points there. I have already iterated strongly that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Viscount Eccles
Does the noble Lord not think it is slightly insulting to assume that we do not know the background?
Lord Dykes
That is the reality that is now hitting members of public—and not just the press in article after article, comment after comment—as people interviewed say that they were not given sufficient warning.
On the detailed policies, this might seem to be a minor matter, and in one way it is, but it is of great importance to the environment and to the health of the motor vehicle industry in this country, which faces such a gloomy prospect now in view of the most recent developments. The point I was making, which I think is entirely valid, is that after the referendum result, and at least before the 8 June 2017 election when the Prime Minister completely lost the mandate to continue “Brexit means Brexit”—which needs to be remembered as well, but she carried on regardless—the Government should have started going through all the legislative responsibilities they needed to enact. This would have reassured the public that if there was continuity of any kind in policy formation, if we thought that the EU policy system, of which we were devoted members for 45 years, was sufficient, it would be protected.
I come now to the quick points I want to make to cement my agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was saying as well. I, too, cannot understand why there is no proper explanation of paragraph 2.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Further, paragraph 2.5 says:
“The proposed changes are designed to ensure that the CO2 emissions of new cars and vans registered in the UK after the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union continue to be regulated in a manner that is at least as ambitious as current arrangements. If these changes are not made, then the retained EU legislation would have no legal impact on newly registered cars and vans in the UK”.
That, too, would cause a certain amount of alarm unless it was properly explained by the Government. I also agree with the question marks raised about paragraph 7.
Consultation was conducted on the second document, at least. According to the Explanatory Memorandum:
“There were seven responses to the consultation all of which were broadly supportive of the proposals”.
However, no detail is given, unless one gets the full government documentation. It sounds very strange that there were only seven responses to the major matter of the future of the motor vehicle industry. Once again, it probably indicates inadequate time for people to be able to consider these things.
Finally, paragraph 11.1 says:
“Detailed guidance on how the regulations will function and how the various flexibility mechanisms should be applied for will be provided to manufacturers, and made available on line, as soon as it practicable to do so”.
Is this future legislation or just extensions of regulations? When is it going to be? We urgently need guidance now from the Government on all these matters.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will be briefer than I had intended, mainly because most of the points I wanted to raise have already been made. I am afraid there will inevitably be some degree of repetition.
As the Explanatory Memorandum says in relation to the first SI:
“EU law requires manufacturers of road vehicles and engines for non-road mobile machinery to be type approved before production can begin”.
It goes on to say:
“The proposed changes are designed to ensure that the type approval regime is effective after EU withdrawal”.
We then come on—and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, already referred to this—to the reason for the proposed changes. It says:
“If these changes are not made the legislation will not be operable after EU withdrawal because the UK would be required to continue to accept motor vehicles entering the UK market which have a type approval granted by one of the EU 27 approval authorities, and would have no formal way to challenge the validity of the approval”.
I think the question has already been asked but I will ask it again: how many challenges have there been so far under the existing arrangements if this is now being put forward, as it almost seems to be the sole major reason for making the changes we are now discussing?
I had also intended to read out paragraph 2.4, but I will not as my noble friend Lord Adonis has already done so. It makes reference to the interim arrangement that will be introduced, which is valid,
“for a maximum of two years, pending a comprehensive review and re-working of the UK’s type approval arrangements (with legislation planned for mid-2019)”.
I put it to the Minister that if we are talking about introducing an interim arrangement for a maximum of two years, with uncertainty as to what will happen after two years, does that not create quite a lot of uncertainty for the motor industry going forward? This SI may or may not clear up uncertainty for a short period of time, but it certainly does not do so over a much longer period of time. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
As I say, the Explanatory Memorandum makes reference to the interim arrangement, under which there will be a need for,
“manufacturers holding an EU approval from an EU-27 approval authority … and producing motor vehicles on or after Exit day … to apply for a Provisional UK type approval from the VCA in order to be able to register their motor vehicles in Great Britain or Northern Ireland”.
How quick is this process for applying for a provisional UK type approval? After all, we are getting pretty close to 29 March, so how many of these motor vehicle manufacturers have already applied for one; how many applications are we expecting; is there loads of paperwork to fill in; is it a formality; and on what