Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 31st October 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, sadly, this Bill is necessary. Although cross-party talks continue, the United Kingdom Government must take forward certain essential legislation to maintain the provision of public services. The legislation before the House today places the budget published in February 2019 on a legal footing and enables the Northern Ireland Civil Service to access the full funding for this financial year. Royal Assent is necessary to avoid the use of emergency powers under Section 59 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

I shall now briefly turn to the Bill’s contents, which largely rehearse what the former Secretary of State set out to the House in a Written Ministerial Statement earlier this year. The Bill authorises Northern Ireland departments and certain other bodies to incur expenditure and use resources for the financial year ending on 31 March 2020.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise—for the second time this week—for interrupting the Minister so early in his speech. However, I would be very grateful if he could give the House any information in respect of the costs presumably incurred under this Bill as a result of the compensation paid under the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill. Will that legislation go through the Commons as it will do through this House later today—speedily and without amendment, as I understand it? Does the Minister, or the Chief Whip, have any information on that, please?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I do not mind being interrupted by the noble Lord. The sum total of the expected costs under the historical institutional abuse Bill—this is an early estimate—is around £237 million, which will come from the Northern Ireland block grant. Money has been set aside and it will be met in full; of course, it may be higher than that depending upon circumstances. I believe that the historical institutional abuse Bill will pass through this House swiftly and, I sincerely hope, without amendment, today. I would like to believe that it could pass through the House of Commons in exactly the same fashion, but while I would like to make that so, I cannot guarantee it. But I hope to be able to report back with more information during the discussions we will have on the HIA Bill. That should help the House be aware of what we are facing.

[Lord Hain]

I thank the Minister very much for that response. I know, and the whole House knows, that he has been fully supportive of the Bill, and I am grateful for that. But in any intervening discussions that might be had with the Chief Whip here or the Chief Whip down there, can it be made clear that there is no reason at all why the Commons cannot do the same? The victims of historical institutional abuse will not understand if that does not happen.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I believe that the victims of historical abuse are watching us right now, not just in this House but in the other place. The noble Lord is correct in assessing what their view would be if that Bill fails to pass through both Houses. I will return to this during discussions in Committee on the historical institutional abuse Bill, to bring further matters to his and the House’s attention. If I may return now to the Bill before us, I shall talk briefly on its contents.

The Bill authorises Northern Ireland departments and certain other bodies to incur expenditure and use resources for the financial year ending 31 March 2020. Clause 1 authorises the Northern Ireland Department of Finance to issue £5.3 billion out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The sums of money granted to Northern Ireland departments and other bodies are set out in Schedule 1, which also sets out the purposes for which the funds may be used. The allocations in this budget reflect where the key pressures lie in Northern Ireland, building on discussions we have had with the Northern Ireland Civil Service, the main parties in Northern Ireland and other stakeholders. Where possible, they reflect the previous Executive’s priorities.

Clause 2 authorises the temporary borrowing by the Northern Ireland Department of Finance of around £2.6 billion, to safeguard against the possibility of a temporary deficiency in the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. If used, this money will be repaid by 31 March 2020. Clause 3 authorises Northern Ireland departments and other specified public bodies to use resources amounting to some £6 billion in the year ending 31 March 2020 for the purposes specified in Schedule 2. Clause 4 sets limits on the accruing resources, including both operating and non-operating accruing resources, which may be used in the current financial year. Since this Bill would normally be taken through the Assembly, Clause 5 includes a series of adaptations that ensure that, once approved by both Houses, it will be treated as though it were an Assembly budget Act.

Alongside the Bill, the Government have laid a Command Paper; a set of main estimates for the Northern Ireland departments and bodies covered by the budget Bill. These estimates, which have been prepared by the Northern Ireland Department of Finance, set out the breakdown of resource allocation in much greater detail. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My Lords, I welcome the support from across the House for the Bill. However, I have no wish to be standing here moving it and I recognise that your Lordships have no wish to be sitting here listening to me doing so. I fully appreciate that this will not be possible again.

The Executive formation statutory instrument that we shall consider shortly hereafter reminds us that there is a period until 13 January for the formation of an Executive. If we are unable to do that, I think that this House and the other place will be very reluctant to extend the period further. That will bring us into new territory in terms of what needs to happen next. I should have thought that, at that stage, there will then be an election in Northern Ireland. A lot will depend on its outcome: if an Executive can be formed, we are out of a hole; if it cannot, we are in a hole. Noble Lords here recognise what direct rule would look like and why it is not a preference that we wish to explore. None the less, we are discussing a budget, and certain questions were asked regarding both the budget and more broadly. I will try to answer them in turn.

Touching on comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, both today and in the past, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked whether there has been an increase in funding for the health service. There has been an increase of 3.8% in that funding. However, as the noble Lord conceded, the reality is that that amount of money has not been adequate to address the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which require more than a 3.8% increase in funding. Although we have put a further £17 million into an in-year monitoring exercise, that too is inadequate to address these significant problems. Only an incoming Executive, or government by other means, can truly address these issues. The shocking statistic presented yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and echoed again today by other noble Lords, is chilling to consider. That alone should be reason enough for the parties in Northern Ireland to give due consideration to expediting their ability to get that Executive back up and running—I hope that it is. None the less, this budget must go forward.

I want briefly to touch on the renewable heating incentive. In March, I made statements in the light of a heated but sensible debate in this place about the need for independent assessment of the hardship in Northern Ireland as a consequence of the subsequent and serious failures in developing a workable approach to RHI. I made a number of commitments then. I am reminded of the quotation from the Duke of Wellington when he chaired his first Cabinet meeting. He said that he gave them the orders and discovered that they wanted to discuss them. I said very clearly what I felt was appropriate for the Northern Ireland Civil Service to move forward with, but I cannot order the Northern Ireland Civil Service to move forward on that basis. A protracted discussion then ensued on how to move this issue forward. Steps have been taken, some of which I will rehearse now, but I commit to writing to my noble friend Lord Lexden and placing in the Library a full and detailed assessment of this issue by tomorrow. I will share that assessment, because noble Lords deserve it and should have had it before now.

Let me put on record where we are on this approach. The responsible department in Northern Ireland held a call for evidence between 17 June and 10 July to examine the issues that should be brought forward for discussion. It published the responses to the consultation on 10 October. It has appointed an independent energy consultant by the name of, I think, Andrew Buglass. His responsibility will be to develop relevant definitions of “hardship” and engage directly with the participants, so that each case will be examined to ensure that we have that information. We expect that that will be responded to before the end of the year.

I will put all this in a detailed response to my noble friend Lord Lexden, to make sure that he has the information. I put on record an apology for this not happening beforehand—he deserved it before now. I should have informed the House of the steps being taken before the debate, rather than doing so now. I hope that noble Lords will accept the apology in the manner in which it is given.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown]

Can the Minister tell the House whether there is any clarity on the differential between the tariff proposed for Northern Ireland and the tariffs in England and the Republic of Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I believe that there is clarity there. I have answered that question before but, again, for the benefit of all, I will make sure that that information is included in my answer to ensure that there is an appreciation of how the tariff in Northern Ireland sits alongside tariffs in the rest of the British Isles, so that it can be understood. The noble Lord will recall that when we discussed this issue, we looked at different elements which created the need for differential tariffs for particular time periods and baselines. Rather than explaining this at greater length, I will put it in the response that I will lodge in the Library tomorrow.

Yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about welfare and I believe that I gave a positive response. She has subsequently written to me and I will respond in a similarly positive manner. I do not wish to see a situation develop in Northern Ireland where those who are experiencing these challenges and facing potential hardship suffer in any way—I repeat, in any way—as a consequence of the absence of an Executive. I will happily share that letter with noble Lords. I will put a copy in the Library, so that they can see what I believe we should be doing to ensure not only that we address this matter expeditiously but that the people of Northern Ireland can appreciate that it will be done, so they will not face the hardship which might indeed have been on the horizon had we not been able to move forward in this regard.

On the role of an incoming Executive, it is not going to be easy for them because in truth, a number of the bigger problems—not least in the health service and education—stem from before the collapse of the previous Executive; they did not start with the collapse of this one. There are long-standing issues which have not been addressed for a range of reasons, and there will be a serious challenge for any incoming Executive or whomsoever has to administer governance in Northern Ireland. For obvious reasons, I hope that it is an incoming Executive, but I am aware that there is only so long that this can continue. I have made a number of statements about this in the past and events have made a liar of me. I do not wish to repeat those statements, but I shall repeat a simple one: the people of Northern Ireland deserve much better than they have got, and we have to move forward in a sensible manner.

The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked why certain issues have been taken forward in this place and not others. The only thing I would note is that if we end up with direct rule, I am afraid that this House and the other place will decide which issues are going to be taken forward and in what order. I do not believe that that is the right way forward at all, and it may well be that they do not marry up with the situation in Northern Ireland, even though I would wish it to be so. That is a portent and a warning.

The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, raised the question of the Barnett consequentials. I do not have the exact answer but I will find out and report back to the noble Lord if he will allow me to do so.

If I have failed to address any particular issue, I will happily write to noble Lords.

[Lord Lexden]

Can my noble friend give the House any information about the publication of the independent report on the inquiry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My noble friend has reminded me of something that I could not find in my written notes. I cannot give an exact date, but he will be aware that we published our own report on that. I shall use the word loosely, but I hope that its publication is imminent. I think it has reached the stage where it can be published and that now, it is just a question of when. The moment I am aware of the publication date, I will ensure that noble Lords are given it so that they are aware of it. I do not want to keep it a secret; it is just that I do not have the information.

[Lord Hain]

Perhaps the noble Lord would follow up on our previous exchange, and I apologise to noble Lords for briefly pursuing this. It is my understanding, based on recent discussions I have had at the Bar of the House with Members of Parliament, including MPs from Northern Ireland, that business managers in the Commons are telling them that there is no time to take the remaining stages of the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill. If that is the case, perhaps I may put two things on the record. First, that is not right. To use the excuse of electing the Speaker on Monday as a reason not to take through the Bill is unacceptable. If it means MPs sitting for a few hours more on Monday, they must do so in order in to protect the victims of historical institutional abuse because they have suffered horrendously.

The other procedural option—I have checked this, and I am a former Leader of the Commons—is that a First Reading in the Commons could take place. It could then go into the wash-up period. I have been told for a fact by Members of the Labour Opposition that they will support it, as will the DUP, Lady Sylvia Hermon, the Liberal Democrats and, I am sure, the SNP, so it could receive Royal Assent. The information that MPs have been given that there is no time for Royal Assent is nonsense. Royal Assent could be given at any time before Dissolution formally takes place. I am sorry to burden the House with this, but it is important to put it on the record.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord brings information to the House that I am not privy to. I have not had a chance to speak with business managers in the other place. I will be disappointed if his recitation of the details is correct, but I can say only that I do not know the answer because I have not had an opportunity to find out. We will return to that Bill later on this afternoon, when I will have more information. At that point, time having allowed me to have the necessary discussions with the other place, I will be in a better position, I hope, to answer the very questions that he raised.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown]

The Minister will accept that, if what the noble Lord was told by the other House is put into operation, that will be totally unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland and to both Houses. I listened to the debate in the other House following a question to the Prime Minister and I have read the debates in this House on the issue, and there is unanimity on getting this matter resolved. Where there is a will, there is always a way. If there is not a way to push this through, it is because somewhere in the system, whether in the other House or within the Government, it seems there is not the will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I do not doubt the resolve of this House in any manner, nor do I doubt the resolve of the cross-party approach to this matter. That was made very clear yesterday and in the exchanges thus far in this debate, and I expect it will be made clear in the debate to follow. On that basis, all I can say is that I will go away, find out more and bring back to noble Lords information that I hope will help everyone to appreciate what is going on.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen]

The Opposition is entirely behind my noble friend on this, but could the Minister look at the point that he made about the wash-up? As long as we pass the Bill later and First Reading is taken in the other place—nothing happens; it is simply received—it could go into the wash-up and be given Royal Assent. That is the specific thing that we are asking the Minister to do between now and 4.30 pm.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I am happy to take on that commission from the noble Lord. I will report back on the question of the wash-up and provide any information that I have at that point.

Returning very briefly to the Bill before us, I beg to move.

Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.

Extinction Rebellion

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the demands of Extinction Rebellion.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK is taking world-leading action on climate change informed by independent expert advice provided by the Committee on Climate Change and other bodies. This ensures that decisions such as legislating for net zero by 2050 are based on robust scientific analysis. Climate change is an emotive issue, but a cross-community consensus will be required to ensure a transition that works for all.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many organisations are saying that a target date of 2050 is far too far away, that we should be treating this as a major emergency and, at most, 2030 should be the target date? There is going to be a catastrophe. We cannot leave it to the next generation to deal with the mess that we have left them. Surely, we have to deal with this more urgently. We are sleep-walking into a terrible crisis.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

We are the only economy to have legislated for net zero by 2050. We have done so on the basis of science from a committee that is independent of thought. The important thing to recognise is that we as a nation are responsible for only 1.2% of global emissions; China alone is responsible for 30%. We have doubled our climate finance to address where the serious problem lies, which is indeed beyond our shores.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the key objectives of Extinction Rebellion’s recent activities in London was to close down Westminster. Does the Minister agree that recent moves by the Government to achieve exactly that end suggest some sort of membership of the group’s committee at a high level, perhaps the highest level? More seriously, how can the Government continue to support fracking while simultaneously preparing for the elimination of fossil fuels in their entirety by 2050?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

It is important to recognise that, in the US, gas has been a bridge in moving towards decarbonisation. The key challenge for this globe right now will be addressed where serious emissions take place. Extension Rebellion has drawn attention to the issue but in a way that is not always helpful. It needs to be very careful to make sure that it brings alongside the people, because it is the people who will have to do the heavy lifting on this matter.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the recent report from Policy Exchange, co-authored by Richard Walton, former head of Counter Terrorism Command at the Metropolitan Police? It said that:

“Extinction Rebellion is an extremist organisation whose methods need to be confronted and challenged rather than supported and condoned”.


Will he condemn, along with responsible scientists, Extinction Rebellion’s falsehoods and exaggeration, which have unnecessarily frightened young people, and will he stand with the good people of Canning Town in their determination to get to work rather than indulge campaigns for permanent austerity?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

As I said a moment ago, China is responsible for one-third of global emissions. I think that if Confucius were to comment on this he would say, “To address climate change, do not glue yourself to an electric train”. I do not believe the work of Extinction Rebellion in this regard has done credit to it or to the cause of emissions reduction, and I stand beside those at Canning Town who have been frustrated when trying to use public transport.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, we invented the combustion engine, but I take the Minister’s point about emissions from China. But this is a climate emergency, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. Why can we not make an agreement that the next Queen’s Speech, whether it is written by the current Government or another Government, will include climate consideration in all legislation, as New Zealand has done and as many other countries are doing? Just yesterday, we heard revised figures about sea level rise, and there are fires in California and droughts in South Africa which will render whole areas uninhabitable. Surely the sensible thing is to do this and then next year, at the COP in Glasgow, we can lead the world, as we should do, on how to deal with this emergency.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

To be clear, we do lead the world in this area: our legislation is world-beating. The important thing right now, on the glide path towards COP, will be several more announcements to show exactly how we can take that leadership role and encourage others to walk in our steps.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister was right to call this a cross-community challenge. We are going into an election, and there will be all sorts of attempts to outbid the others with different dates and different policies, but when we come back here in December decisions will have to be made that will take a great deal of money and cause an awful lot of change in our country. They can be made only if they are made across Parliament and beyond one Parliament. Does the Minister agree that delivering our targets on climate change needs a cross-parliamentary approach in which the Government work with all parties across Parliament?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The important aspect is that the work we are doing is based on the work of the Committee on Climate Change. It is an independent body advising on these matters. No matter who comes in over the next decade or so, that body will be integral in ensuring that science is at the heart of our decarbonisation.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that investment in fossil fuel subsidies for fracking and a massive road-building programme will make the climate emergency worse?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

It is important to examine the words of former President Obama on unconventional hydrocarbon recovery in North America. Had America not moved in that direction, its carbon footprint would be considerably higher. We need to look at all solutions to try to take us forward, and the gas bridge is one of them.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that this problem arises primarily because there are so many human beings on this planet? We are making the problem, not the other creatures that live on this planet. What conclusions does he draw from that?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I am not quite sure which conclusions I can move towards. As a geologist, I note that we are now entering into a new geological period, which is known as the Anthropocene. Our influence on this world is now much more significant than we could ever have imagined.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that trees have a major role to play in combating the problem? Will he continue to pressurise his colleagues for us to plant more trees? More importantly, will he stop the willy-nilly felling of trees, bearing in mind that it takes 50 years for a tree to grow into a situation where it is absorbing carbon?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I believe trees are an essential element of this. At COP 26, I would like to see every world leader who comes to Glasgow plant a tree. As a result, there should be a forest that stretches from Scotland through all the nations of the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, nuclear reactors are one of the biggest contributors to climate change, unlike thorium reactors. What are the Government doing to encourage the use of thorium, which is a much safer and less-polluting form of energy?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I do not think that nuclear is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, but I recognise that thorium-based nuclear is certainly a way forward—its half-life is considerably shorter. Decoupling nuclear from the wider weapons question might well be a way forward for us all.

Net Zero Carbon Emissions

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to give new duties to regulators to promote the achievement of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, as recommended in the National Infrastructure Commission Report Strategic Investment and Public Confidence, published on 11 October.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government welcome the review by the National Infrastructure Commission. There are existing powers and duties in place for regulators in relation to decarbonisation. As we transition to net zero, regulators will need to continue to play their part in delivering this important goal. We are considering the commission’s report carefully and will look at what additional guidance may be necessary to support our regulators in helping the UK to meet this vital commitment.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response, because it is good to know that the Government are looking at this seriously. Does he agree that the three regulators that have been reviewed—Ofgem, Ofcom and Ofwat—have the opportunity to make an enormous difference to reducing our carbon emissions by 2050? Can he explain whether the same duties will be imposed on the Office of Rail Regulation, and on his department in respect of road transport and other transports, because they all have a big role to play?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord raises an important question. All must do their part and, wherever my department is responsible, it will ensure that there is serious communication between the individual agencies, all anchored to the 2050 net zero commitment.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, do we have all the scientific evidence to show that we can do anything to prevent climate change?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

We are anchored to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and we have our own climate change committee putting the science at the heart of our work. However, the challenge we face is that we alone cannot bring about the necessary steps, so this must be a global endeavour. We are living through a new geological age which has been termed the Anthropocene—we are bringing about change in our very own environment.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an engineer in the nuclear industry. New nuclear and a reset of the strategy for achieving it is critical to zero carbon by 2050, being the only mature option for the zero-carbon baseload or non-variable power. Can the Minister provide some assurance that the Government will maintain their focus on new nuclear initiatives such as investment in small modular reactors and the regulated asset based funding model to enable new nuclear beyond Hinkley to move forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I am happy to assure the noble Lord that nuclear will remain part of our strategy. It is indeed a low-carbon approach. We are strongly committed to small modular reactors and right now we need a baseload to complement our renewable electricity supply.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, when the Minister and his department review the infrastructure report, will he also take into consideration the words of Ofgem, whose annual summary of trends was published this month. It says that the decarbonisation of energy has retracted to its,

“slowest rate of decline since 2012”.

There is a disconnect between the Government’s target of 2050 and what is actually happening. Can he tell us what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to reverse that trend, and when will the decarbonisation of energy start to accelerate again?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

It is sometimes difficult to assess the rate at which we are decarbonising, but I can assure the noble Lord that, as we continue to phase out coal and to work carefully with the domestic heating approach, we are on track to meet our 2050 commitments. It will be a challenge, and all must do their part.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Government’s terms of reference for the National Infrastructure Commission actually require it not to have a significant impact on the public balance sheet. That seems to me absolutely bizarre, because the Government have an objective to get to net zero emissions but they do not want to invest in the solutions.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness is that we need to invest very carefully and very substantially. There will be impacts across our entire economy—all will have to do their part. The Government will examine this report very carefully indeed, along with the terms of reference going forward.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, will much of the cost of net zero emissions by 2050 be transferred on to energy prices? If that is the case, will that not make us increasingly uncompetitive in the world and wipe out what remains of our heavy industries?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

We face a challenge going forward to achieve the net zero target by 2050. We have to remember that this is not all about energy regeneration itself because there are other areas that we need to consider, not least the decarbonisation of our transport network. Each of these elements will have a cost that, whether we like it or not, will eventually fall on taxpayers or individual consumers. That is where the money will ultimately come from.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, while the regulators need these additional powers to enhance public confidence in combating climate change, can the Minister explain how the net zero target can be achieved by 2050 when the Government’s own target continues to exclude aviation and shipping?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The useful answer to the question is that we rely heavily on the Committee on Climate Change. Only this week, I had a meeting with its chief executive to examine shipping and aviation and to explore the manners and means by which we can ensure that they too are wedded to the necessary decarbonisation. I believe that they will be able to help us deliver on that very difficult and challenging point.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend explain to the House the contribution that energy derived from waste recovery plants are making to zero carbon emissions? In particular, will he ensure that, rather than the electricity generated by them going to the national grid, it will go to local homes to reduce their heating costs, particularly in the north of England?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My noble friend has raised a point to which I do not have the exact answer. If she will permit, I will write to her setting out exactly how much energy is generated from waste and whether it plugs into either the local or the national grid.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will agree that if we want to make a real impact on climate change we have to get fossil fuels out of the system. In that respect, what are the Government going to do about phasing out the use of domestic gas boilers?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I might ask the noble Baroness the same question. Everyone here is of course available to phase out their gas boilers. The challenge, however, is doing so in a manner that does not increase the cost per household and we must continue to address fuel poverty which remains a challenge. That will be revealed next year when we put together our plan setting out how to decarbonise domestic heating structures.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, at the risk of irritating my noble friend, can he answer my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich who asked for evidence that all this activity would have the desired result?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My noble friend is never an irritant. I am happy to put a letter together setting out the evidence which we are using to ensure that we are basing our future prospects in terms of decarbonisation on sound, solid and verifiable science.

Brexit: Workers’ Rights

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat as a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in the other place.

“Mr Speaker, the UK has a long and proud tradition of leading the way in workers’ rights and for always setting the highest standards. The Government have been clear and consistent that the decision to leave the EU does not change that in any way whatever. The Government have absolutely no intention of lowering standards on workers’ rights. To suggest otherwise is scaremongering and is untrue.

The EU traditionally has set minimum standards for workers rights’ and, as all colleagues in this Chamber would expect, the UK already exceeds standards in a wide range of areas such as maternity and paternity leave and pay. The UK offers 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay compared with the 14 weeks of paid maternity leave required by the EU’s minimum standards. Because this Government believe in the importance of supporting families in every possible way, we have also given fathers and partners an additional statutory right to leave and pay—something that the EU is only now starting to consider.

We are one of the few member states to have introduced shared parental leave, and we are proud that in the UK we have given all employees with 26 weeks’ qualifying service a statutory right to request flexible working, which enables so many to better balance their work and life responsibilities. EU law allows workers to make such a request only if they are returning from parental leave.

So, under the terms of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, all existing workers’ rights laws will be transferred into domestic law once we have left the EU, making sure that there is no gap or lack of clarity in the minimum set of workers’ rights which, as I have already said, is something that the UK exceeds in many areas. We are also including in the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill a new requirement that every Bill brought before this place in future that affects workers’ rights will include a statement by the Government of the day on how it impacts on workers’ rights. This will ensure that Parliament always has its say. The Government have also published clauses that will require every Government, now and in the future, to monitor new EU legislation covering employment and workplace health and safety standards and to report on those changes to Parliament, so that Parliament can again have its say.

So, in direct answer to the honourable Lady’s question, I can absolutely assure her and this House that the Government will not lower standards on workers’ rights when we leave the EU. On the contrary, it is the ambition of this Government to make the United Kingdom the best place to work and to grow a business”.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating that Answer from the other place. It might be helpful and for the convenience of the House if I make it clear that the references to the leaks that gave rise to this exchange are significant, having been reported at the weekend by the Financial Times, which has a good record of picking up government intelligence—very often intelligence that the Government would not wish to see in print.

Three important points are made in these reports. First, the UK is apparently open to some divergence on workers’ rights after Brexit. The FT has stated that the paper that it was relying on was drafted by DExEU with input by Downing Street, and that the UK’s interpretation of the level playing field commitments would be very different after Brexit. It also said that the Government believed that binding arbitration would be “inappropriate”—and binding arbitration was the way suggested in the withdrawal agreement for how the two blocs will work together as we go forward.

This is quite a serious charge. I know that the Government do not normally comment on leaked documents, but it is important to recognise that they responded to this leak, saying that they had no intention of lowering standards, which was repeated in the Statement that we have just heard. They went on to explain:

“UK Level Playing Field commitments will be negotiated in the context of the future UK-EU Free Trade Agreement, where we will achieve a balance of rights and obligations which reflect the scope and depth of the future relationship”.


I put it to the Minister that that is a rather open-ended statement. It does not subscribe to the sense that he was giving in the Statement. How does that guarantee rights if they are to be negotiated, going forward, in the light of the scope and depth of the future relationship? To take a very simple and classic example, we have already set out what our tariff regime would be after Brexit, should there be one. That regime is effectively the same as that of the EU; it differs only very slightly. So what else is there to negotiate in a free trade agreement?

Secondly, looking more closely at the Statement that we have just heard, it is also very unclear where exactly the guarantee that we are expecting is to be found. The Minister has already said:

“The Government have absolutely no intention of lowering standards on workers’ rights”—


but the leaked version absolutely says that no guarantee is available at this stage. It goes on to say that,

“under the terms of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 all existing workers’ rights laws will be transferred into domestic law once we have left the EU, making sure there is no gap or lack of clarity in the minimum set of workers’ rights”.

It also says that,

“every Bill brought before this place in future that affects workers’ rights will include a statement by the Government of the day on how it impacts on workers’ rights”.

A statement on impact is not a guarantee. Can the Minister convince us otherwise?

Thirdly, the Minister said:

“The Government have also published clauses that will require every Government, now and in the future, to monitor new EU legislation covering employment and workplace health and safety standards and to report on those changes to Parliament, so that Parliament can again have its say”.


Where is the guarantee in that? “Having a say” will certainly not provide us with the guarantees we are talking about.

This Government are not committing to the future maintenance of standards. I draw the attention of your Lordships’ House to the very comprehensive amendment on the non-regression of standards that was passed by the House during the recent passage of the Trade Bill —a Bill which has now disappeared. It was proposed by the Government and accepted unanimously by the House. When will we see that re-enacted?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I welcome the comments from the noble Lord. One of the important issues is the question about what a future trade agreement with the EU would deliver. I accept that he is saying that there is apparently nothing else to negotiate and perhaps it can be done very quickly indeed. This Government’s policy has always been that we can do that trade deal very quickly; it is important to stress that.

As to the elements in the leaked document, it will not surprise the noble Lord to know that I will not be commenting on them specifically. However, having been a member of the European Parliament, what I will say is that the European Parliament and the European Union set minimum standards. The secret to those is how you enforce them. This Government have put substantial investment into enforcing the rights and standards throughout all employment and welfare, which has not been matched by other countries. It is also important to suggest that we can now manage our own affairs in this regard and that it is for the other place and this place to determine what they shall be. My final point is that this Government will not diminish workers’ rights whatsoever.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this Answer. Nobody doubts his sincerity in reading it out but, given the catalogue of issues set out at length by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I am sure that the Minister will understand that there will be distrust out there; there will be people who suspect that Downing Street has said one thing and done another. So would the Minister agree that the best way of setting people’s minds at rest would have been to have an international trade Bill in which all these rights were set out and protected, and to have the scrutiny process enshrined in law? Does the Minister agree that it is a great tragedy that that has been canned by the Conservative Government?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

All the rights that we have accrued as a member of the EU are retained from EU law into our corpus of domestic law. That is the best place for them to be set out. Any changes to that, including any that a future Government may wish to make, must be made with the permission of the other place and this place, using voting procedures in the normal way. There shall be no diminution of the rights of workers as a consequence of this.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, is not one difficulty with this whole debate that some people are confusing the modernisation of rights, benefits and workers’ conditions and protections with lower standards? Is it not a fact that we now have a modern economy, 83% of which is services, and that workpeople face entirely new conditions that require much more detailed attention? A great deal of the EU legislation of the past, which was well intentioned, was conceived in the age of very big business—and largely by big business—and an age of steam and steel that no longer exists. Is there not a new situation which lively, caring economies should be addressing much more vigorously?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My noble friend makes an important point, which I will answer in two ways, if I may. First, in this country, we have very much a service-based economy. In making rules and laws that affect workers, we can tailor them carefully to the needs of the people of this country. My noble friend also made a point about the situation with regard to the laws and rights that exist in the EU at present. As I recall, for many decades the Benches opposite opposed almost every aspect of what was going on inside the EU, because they felt that it was servicing big business rather than individual workers. We must make sure that our laws are fit for our people.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, of course this country ought to maintain, and indeed pioneer, the best standards on workers’ rights—but, since the whole purpose of Brexit is to restore parliamentary government to the United Kingdom, how could it make sense for us to pre-commit to endorsing whatever legislation the EU might in future choose to bring in? Should we not have confidence in our own democracy?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I could not have put that better myself.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House that 30% of trade unionists vote Conservative. These Benches are not unaware of their interests. I draw my colleagues’ attention to my entries in the register. Since the Government have agreed that all existing workers’ rights laws will be transferred into domestic law—that deals with my first point—and have moved on to say that we will be consulted and we will look at these laws, is it not about time that we put some trust in our Government?

Secondly, since we are about to come to an election, and bearing in mind that the last Labour Government did absolutely nothing to better trade unionists’ position in society, maybe Labour could spend some of the election time saying what it intends to do to help the TUC and the Institute of Employment Rights, whose president joined this House yesterday, to get a somewhat better deal.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My noble friend makes a point that is definitely worth making. I note that an issue we face constantly in the EU is the discrepancy between the ideal and the delivery. To look at one aspect, the transparent and predictable work conditions that have been passed in directive form will not be brought in until 2022. The Government have already brought in elements of that directive.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister correctly emphasised that most of these EU standards are minimum standards, and that in many cases we considerably exceed them. Could he therefore explain why the Government have put so much emphasis on having the right to diverge from those standards, when the only argument that many of us have heard in favour of divergence is so that we could lower them? We can always exceed those standards without running into any difficulty—but what is the purpose of this enormous emphasis on divergence?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I often wonder what will happen when the EU begins to diverge in directions that are not suitable to this country. We must make sure that the laws we make here are suited to our workers. That will not always be the case if we follow in lock-step with the EU. We need to be ready to make laws that are fit for workers in this country.

Northern Ireland: Devolved Government

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

Getting Stormont back up and running is my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s absolute priority. The parties remain engaged and are demonstrating a willingness to find solutions to the remaining critical issues. However, a renewed determination to find agreement will be needed if an Executive are to be formed. I urge the parties to work with the Secretary of State and the Tánaiste to do what is right for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Can there be any doubt that the EU withdrawal agreement has made political progress in Northern Ireland even harder to achieve? Do not all unionist parties, not just the DUP, have grounds for concern about the actions of this Conservative and Unionist Government? Will the Prime Minister, who has given himself the title of “Minister for the Union”, be at the forefront of continuing efforts to secure political progress and to strengthen our union, in the interests of all our fellow country men and women in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has declared that he will be the Minister for the union. The union is composed of four nations. Northern Ireland is an integral part of that union. We must deliver for the people of Northern Ireland but so must the politicians there, who have an obligation to reform the Executive.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, will the Minister give careful consideration to whether it would speed up the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland if we were to stop paying them until they sat again?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

Yes.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, how many more times will the Government watch a failed attempt to bring the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive back into being before they find the kind of initiative that might break the deadlock and give the people of Northern Ireland what they need, which is local politicians capable of delivering and willing to deliver so many things which are hanging undone, unfinanced and undelivered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord is correct. He will be aware that last week there was an attempt for the Assembly to sit, but it was unable to do so because it could not be done on a cross-community basis. We must ensure that each element of the treaties which we are obliged to meet, not least the Belfast agreement, is met in full, but in reality the parties in Northern Ireland have that responsibility and they must answer to the people sooner rather than later.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, Northern Ireland has now been without a Government for more than 1,000 days. I know the Minister continually comes to the House to update it on the progress of those talks. With the current round of talks with the political parties in Northern Ireland ongoing, can he tell the House whether we are getting any closer to a working Executive and Assembly being formed in Northern Ireland any time soon? If not, I question the whole process the Government and the parties are involved in because it is certainly not delivering devolution for Northern Ireland.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord is correct. There have been 1,000 lost days for the people of Northern Ireland. This cannot go on, but I have said that many times. The reality remains very simple: the parties are remarkably close, as only a few issues divide them, and it is time to resolve those few issues.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My noble friend has very clearly expressed the deeply held and legitimate concerns shared by a number of unionists right across this United Kingdom about aspects of the withdrawal agreement. Does the Minister believe that the prospects of restoring devolved government are improved by an agreement that places a de facto border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? What further assurances can he give this House that the agreement will not seriously undermine and weaken the political and economic integrity of the union?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My noble friend would, rightly, question my veracity if I said that Brexit had no influence in Northern Ireland. Right now, it is important to ensure that we are able to seek and deliver a withdrawal agreement that works for all parts of Northern Ireland. That will be the final test. However, I hope that the parties of Northern Ireland do not wait for that to happen but resolve to bring themselves into an Executive.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not think that the Minister quite answered the question that was asked of him on that point. However, after this Question, we shall move on to the next business—the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill. If anything, it is a really poignant reminder of what is happening in Northern Ireland: how the people there are waiting for decisions to be made. I have previously raised the issue of the hyponatraemia inquiry. I commissioned it all those years ago when I was a Minister and we are still waiting to go through the recommendations.

Noble Lords will have noticed that at the moment the Prime Minister is spending a great deal of time talking about an election of Members of Parliament to Westminster. Can the Minister tell us how much time the Prime Minister has had left over to talk personally to the political parties in Northern Ireland? How much is he involved in trying to get Stormont and the institutions up and running again, or is he too busy focusing on a withdrawal Bill that is doing more damage than helping in getting those institutions up and running?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

Regarding hyponatraemia, I will, as I have said before, commit to working to deliver against that—it is long overdue. As to the question of the commitment of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, he is absolutely committed, but right now the person taking the lead on that is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has redoubled his efforts to bring the parties back to the table. That they have not done so remains a disappointment for him and for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

No doubt my noble friend knows that progress has been made when Prime Ministers—Sir John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown—have become involved. Why does the Prime Minister not go to Northern Ireland and invite all Members of the Assembly, duly elected and still being paid, to Stormont to talk to him about these things?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

When I next meet the Prime Minister, I will take the point raised by my noble friend and hopefully we can start a discussion about it.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019: Section 3(5)

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

That this House takes note of the Report pursuant to section 3(5) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, which was laid before this House on 23 October.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, this is the third report published in line with our obligations under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019.

I start with the issue of Executive formation. The Secretary of State was disappointed to extend the period for Executive formation to 13 January 2020. The parties have still not been able to reach agreement. We will continue to do all we can to bring about the formation of a sustainable Executive.

With regard to abortion, the duty under Section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 is now in effect As a consequence, Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 have been repealed, and no prosecutions and investigations that were under way under those sections can be continued, regardless of when the offences were committed. We will be consulting on the new legal framework shortly, with regulations required to be in place by 31 March 2020.

We will continue to engage with health professionals in Northern Ireland, the political parties, and wider stakeholders over the coming days and weeks—including to ensure that the appropriate services can be established in line for the new legal framework to be in place.

On the issue of the presumption of non-prosecution and Troubles prosecution guidance, last year the Northern Ireland Office consulted extensively on the Stormont House Agreement proposals, the results of which revealed wide support for the broad institutional framework of the SHA and consensus among the main parties that the UK Government should push ahead with legislation. The consultation process also revealed areas of public concern regarding the detail of the proposals, including the independence of the institutions and how they would interact, as well as questions over the overall timeframe and costs.

The UK Government firmly believe that we must move forward with broad consensus. Central to this will be demonstrating that any approach we take is fully compatible with facilitating independent effective investigations into Troubles-related deaths and providing Northern Ireland with the best possible chance of moving beyond its troubled past. In this regard, the principles of the Stormont House Agreement— facilitating independent investigations while promoting reconciliation—provide the best framework for making progress in the most effective and efficient manner possible. The UK Government remain committed to working with all the Northern Ireland political parties and the Irish Government to this end.

Regarding victims’ payments, on 22 October, the UK Government launched a consultation on the legal framework for a victims’ payment scheme. The consultation will run for five weeks, and the UK Government will welcome views from all, including from noble Lords. As we have said previously, the legislation will be laid by the end of January 2020 and will take effect by the end of May 2020.

On political donations, the issue of retrospection remains sensitive, as we explored when we discussed this issue only two weeks ago. The Government will consult on this matter with the Northern Ireland parties in due course and will formally report back to the House. Any decision on the creation of a university in Derry is primarily one for universities themselves, as I stated last week.

On same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships, as the 21 October deadline has passed, the Government are now under a duty to deliver same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships in Northern Ireland. We will make regulations which will mean that civil marriage between couples of the same sex and civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples will be lawful in Northern Ireland from 13 January 2020. The first civil marriages should be able to take place in the week of Valentine’s Day. We plan to consult on religious ceremonies and religious protections and the conversion of civil partnerships to same-sex marriage and marriage to opposite-sex civil partnerships, and therefore there will be a short delay before we make regulations related to these issues, and these issues alone. I hope that this update has been of value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My Lords, these reports every fortnight give us an opportunity to touch on some of the bigger issues facing Northern Ireland. I will try to take on some of the specific issues raised today.

I will begin with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. She raised very important points. We must speak very clearly on this. I have been told by my officials that the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers does not prevent a senior officer of a Northern Ireland department exercising a function of the department during the period of forming an Executive if the officer is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. If it is in the public interest to exercise that during the period, we must make sure that there is no diminution of that during that period. I will confirm that in writing to the noble Baroness.

A question was asked about whether these reports will continue. To be honest, I am not sure about that myself in terms of what is happening in the other place, but if we do indeed enter into purdah there will be no Parliament here to debate the reports, so the reporting function would be in abeyance. However, I would instruct my officials that we will continue to draft such reports so that they might be available for a continuing or incoming Government, regardless of what happens next. It is important that this information is still actively gathered together.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, asked about the founding of a university in Derry/Londonderry. The answer, in truth, is that it rests with the institution itself to put forward the case. To date, none has done so. If the university is indeed in such a position it should do just that and put together its case to initiate the proceedings, because nothing can happen until that has been completed. It is a matter of devolved authority but, none the less, the first step will necessarily be taking forward the examination of the business case for the initiation of the establishment of a university. If he were able to facilitate, I would be very happy to sit with the institution and discuss this further. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already sat and discussed with it. I am not privy to that conversation but, if it was not on that point, I am very happy to initiate and have that very clear discussion with that institution if we can.

I will touch on the larger question that rests here today on the formation of an Executive. I am always drawn to the remarks of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, on these matters. As some noble Lords will be aware, I am also a fan of poetry from Ireland:

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;


… everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned”.

Those noble Lords who know their Yeats will know the bit I missed out. I had to check the exact words, because I always remember the part I read out. The rest of it says:

“Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,


The blood-dimmed tide is loosed”.

That is what it means if we get this wrong; the bit I left out is the problem. It is easy to talk about the other bits; it is the bit in the middle that causes us the problem. This is where it becomes very difficult, because I am running out of words to say that no stone shall be left unturned. I am out of clichés about what is going on in Northern Ireland and I want to stop using them.

It is critical that the parties in Northern Ireland come together. If they do not, then in the new year there will need to be an election. I do not know what the result will be. I have no crystal ball. My fear is that it will lead us to where we are now, and thereafter we will take that journey down the path down towards direct rule, spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has said on more than one occasion, once we enter direct rule, we do not get out of it. I think that the truth is that the people of Northern Ireland are crying out for change, whether it be in health, education or welfare. They are crying out and no one is hearing them. It is a silent cry for change to come.

I cannot make the parties do more than they are doing. The question has been asked: what is the Prime Minister doing? The Prime Minister met the parties in July. However, there is no point in equivocating around the truth that we sit in the fog of Brexit. I make no excuses for that, and I make no explanations around that. That is where we are: becalmed in the fog of Brexit, waiting for the winds of change to pick up and take our vessel towards that promised land which will be change in Northern Ireland. Yet here we wait. We listen to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about the situation with health in Northern Ireland, and are reminded of exactly what it means to get this wrong. We cannot be becalmed and wait for this to pass. That is the shocking and sad thing about it.

I take a slight issue with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. There is a structure to the talks. We have brought in independent facilitators—although not an overarching, high-profile one—to bring the parties to that point from which we believe that the next step can be taken. If I could quantify it in a meaningful way, I would say that we are 95% there but, like jumping over a chasm, 95% does not get you to the other side. It is that magic 5% that needs to be met, and it rests in the areas with which I am sure noble Lords are very familiar: rights, culture and language, issues which can unite us. The poetry of language can bring us together, yet it can divide us strongly as well. This is the part that remains undone—that remains to be stitched together. If we can find that compromise and way forward on the language matter—it seems in some respects so close, and would be so joyous to get right for all of Northern Ireland—the issues that have been stacking up could be addressed one by one. The greatest danger for an incoming Executive just now is too much to do and too little time. What shall the priorities for Northern Ireland be? How shall we try to establish whether it should be welfare, education or whatever else? Some of these issues have been left waiting to be taken forward not just since the downfall of the last Executive, but for decades preceding it.

I could go on in this regard, but I will not. I do not think that would be useful at this time. I wish I could say that when I come back here, those parties will have found a way forward. However, I do not think that I am going to be doing that in a fortnight’s time, I am sad to say. There may be other reasons why I do not return here in two weeks’ time; I am afraid that I do not know about that either. However, I believe that these reports are invaluable. They have provided us with a platform on which to have this serious debate. I hope that they are heard and listened to in Northern Ireland. I hope that the parties recognise them for what they are: a cry for something to be done, for change to come, for something to be resolved and for the Northern—

[Lord Cormack]

My noble friend made a helpful remark earlier. Will he discuss with the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister the question of the Prime Minister meeting Members of the Assembly and talking to them in Stormont?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I do not get to meet the Prime Minister as often as I would like to, I am afraid, but I am very happy, on the next occasion when we do meet, to raise this matter. I do not believe that one can claim to be the Minister for the Union without ensuring that one is doing all that one can to hold that union together. I will make that point very strongly when I next have an audience with the Prime Minister. I suspect that will not be for a little while but, none the less, when I have that opportunity, I will.

I commend these reports. I believe that they serve a purpose and will continue to do so. I hope that there will come a point when we can look back on them as having provided the foundation for the necessary restoration of a sustainable Executive.

Motion agreed.

Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 28th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, this month the people of Northern Ireland saw the political impasse breach 1,000 days—1,000 days without a functioning Executive, and 1,000 days without progress in education, health, infrastructure and many other areas of devolved competence.

The impact of this impasse has been acutely felt—perhaps most of all by the victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Executive established an independent inquiry into historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland in 2012. The inquiry’s report was published the same month as the collapse of the Executive. As a consequence, the Northern Ireland Executive never considered the report and it was not laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The victims have been left hanging for seven long years. This wait must now come to an end. That is why the Government committed in July to introduce legislation in Westminster by the end of this year, and why today we have made a fresh commitment to implementing the legislation and ensuring that victims and survivors receive an initial “acknowledgement payment” as soon as possible following the Bill’s passage.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene so early in his speech. I very much welcome this Bill and his urgency over it. Can he give the House any guidance as to how quickly this will get through? Many of us would support an accelerated programme, especially in view of the possible general election. It would be tragic for the victims of abuse if it were somehow to stall in a parliamentary logjam.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I welcome the noble Lord’s intervention so early in my speech, and I ask all those speaking today to speak in similar terms. With that assurance, I believe that I can move this forward very swiftly indeed. I believe that the usual channels will be consulted to that end, to ensure that we are not caught in the limbo of difficulty that might follow the announcement of a general election. I have no desire to see this carried over; I would much rather that it was done as quickly as possible.

I return now to the Bill. This legislation sets out the necessary legal framework to deliver two of the key recommendations from the historical institutional abuse report. The first is for a historical institutional abuse redress board to administer a publicly funded compensation scheme for victims in Northern Ireland. This will be a panel composed of a judicial member and two health and social care professionals. Appointments to the board will be made by the Lord Chief Justice and the Executive Office of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The second is for the creation of a statutory commissioner for survivors of institutional childhood abuse for Northern Ireland, who will act as an advocate for victims and survivors and support them in applying to the redress board.

As noble Lords will know, providing redress for the victims and survivors of such abuse in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter. The Government are acting on behalf of the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Northern Ireland parties to enact the legislation here at Westminster. Crucially, the Bill has been drafted by the Northern Ireland Civil Service at the request of, and based on a consensus reached by, all of the main Northern Ireland parties. Sadly, Westminster is simply the only available vehicle for the delivery of the Bill at this time.

I have spoken to colleagues across the House and, in reference to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I believe that the message has been received loud and clear, both in this House and in the other place. If noble Lords can give the assurances that I seek, I will be in a strong position to ensure that we are able to make very rapid progress indeed on the Bill.

In relation to the payments themselves and the speed with which they can be made, Clause 14 of the Bill contains provisions to allow the redress board to make an initial acknowledgement payment of £10,000 to eligible claimants before the full consideration of their claim. Clause 7 also allows the redress board to take a flexible case-management approach to claims, to ensure that those who are elderly or in severe ill-health are considered as a priority. That means those who are in the greatest need of redress will get their payments more quickly. Clause 6 allows claims to be made on behalf of a deceased person by their spouse or children. Crucially, the Secretary of State has tasked officials and the Northern Ireland Civil Service to look at options for implementing this legislation as soon as it becomes law. We cannot lose a single day on this matter.

Regarding the ability for applicants to request an oral hearing—an issue that I know certain noble Lords have raised—the Bill includes provisions for oral hearings, at the discretion of the redress board, where it is necessary in the interests of justice. The provision ensures that oral hearings are available when required but will not act as an unnecessary delay to those cases in which oral evidence is not required.

On the criteria that the redress board will consider, it will consider a number of factors—including, importantly, the duration of an applicant’s stay in the institution—when reaching a final compensation decision. Each application will be decided on its merits on a case- by-case basis. Finally, on the role of the commissioner, Clause 25 enables the commissioner to make representations to any person about matters concerning the interests of victims and survivors, including the redress board.

In conclusion, the victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse have waited too long. Let us get this done. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My Lords, it was remiss of me not to pay tribute to Sir Anthony Hart at the outset of my remarks, and I should like to correct that now. Without his labours in this area, we would not be where we are. We all owe him and his memory a debt of gratitude.

We can move this forward quickly. Now, more than ever, it is essential that we do so, depending on what happens in the other place—perhaps even later today. It would be a useful legacy of this Parliament to deliver on historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland; that would be an inherently good thing to do.

Specific points were raised, and I shall address them at the outset. On the question of the role of the institutions themselves, and sometimes their wider sponsoring bodies, we need to look at how they will be involved. That was one of the elements of the original report, and we will not lose sight of it. The Executive Office will indeed look at it very carefully.

On the question of adequate resourcing, we cannot move this forward without certainty of resource. That is a commitment that we can give here. The money will be met through the Northern Ireland block grant, it will be a statutory obligation and it will be entirely adequate to take this matter forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, asked how much would be set aside for this. Although it is difficult to say without knowing the full number of victims who will come forward, current estimates of the cost are around £243 million, which will be found for this issue. But that cannot be a cap; it will depend on the number of individuals.

The noble Baroness asked a number of other questions which I shall take in turn. The five-year time limit was a direct recommendation of the Hart report—recommendation 90—and agreed by all parties in Northern Ireland. It is important to note, however, that there is no limit on for how long the redress board will function to process all the applications thereafter. However, she is right to point out that it is difficult to ensure that all victims can come forward. That is why one of the key roles and responsibilities of the incoming commissioner will be to use every resource at their disposal to ensure that they identify and promote opportunities for them to come forward. The commissioner must recognise that purpose. The noble Baroness’s more specific question about cohabitation is difficult because it touches on the wider question of family life. We have tried to ensure that the clauses as drafted broadly fit in line with other pieces of welfare legislation. We have tried to be straightforward—in simple terms, trying to ensure that we can do that which is expected under other legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked whether this will be adequately resourced. I should like to assure him that that is fully appreciated and understood. To do otherwise would be, frankly, remiss of us.

The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, raised a number of specific points and said that I might need longer to respond to them. I do not: I can respond to each of them right now, I believe. An immediate acknowledgement payment will be made. The individual themselves, if they are eligible, simply has to present their credentials and the money will be paid. Thereafter, a thorough investigation will necessarily take place, increased as appropriate, case by case. Yes, oral hearings will be possible, but not in every case—only where requested by the individuals. We would not want the process to be slowed down by the notion of automatic hearings, but we will in no way try to prevent them when necessary. Will the redress board listen and heed the commissioner? Yes, that is critical. That is the purpose of the commissioner; he must be able to express his views directly to the redress board.

On the wider question of the redress board touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, it is essential that the board is constituted in the most diverse and sensitive manner possible. For obvious reasons, this is a challenging area and we must ensure that the individuals have full confidence in the board’s composition, integrity and functionality.

The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, asked whether the duration of an individual’s stay in one of the institutions would be a factor. Yes, it will; it will not be the only factor, but it will be taken into account as the consideration goes forward. On the question of an upper limit, at present it is set at £80,000, which can be adjusted on the basis of inflation. This helps us to try to encapsulate the overall costs, but I appreciate his point and I do not doubt that this issue will be revisited at some point in the future. I hope that the noble Lord accepts these responses as being adequate for his purposes, but if not, I will be very happy to write to him to provide the full clarification that may be required before we meet again. I do not want there to be any suggestion that our ultimate progress will be interrupted.

Perhaps I may bring the debate to a relatively straightforward conclusion. I think that there is unanimity in the House on this matter and that I have given adequate responses to all the questions which have been asked. On that basis, I believe that we can move forward using the expedited procedures to try to ensure that we bring together all the elements for the series of stages as quickly as we can. I will be in touch with noble Lords through the usual channels to determine how that shall be so, but it will be done as quickly as humanly possible. For obvious reasons, I would like the matter to be taken care of before the entanglements of any impending or future election. It is right that this is done now, and now we must pass the completed Bill down to the other place as quickly as we can so that it, too, can act with the same expedition as this House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 July be approved.

Relevant document: 58th Report, Session 2017–19, from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, I stress at the outset that a deal with the EU would render the provisions of this instrument unnecessary until the end of any agreed implementation period. The regulations are required only in the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal, a reality which the UK cannot guarantee unilaterally but for which it must necessarily prepare.

A number of noble Lords have raised concerns with me over whether these regulations will remove the rights of EU nationals to establish a business or provide services in the UK. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for meeting me earlier today to discuss this issue and those that he will raise in moving his amendment. I take this opportunity to put on the record that these regulations do not impose any new restrictions on EU nationals or EU-based businesses, or the nationals or businesses of countries with associated agreements, at the point at which we exit the EU. This is because the UK’s underlying legislative framework is compliant with these rights and, importantly, because EU retained law under the withdrawal Act will also apply.

The regulations do not impact on the immigration regime applying to the EEA or to Turkish and Swiss nationals in the UK. Indeed, they explicitly carve out any potential impact on the immigration rights of Swiss nationals and Turkish nationals to ensure that any changes come into force separately via primary legislation, which will be scrutinised in the normal way.

The regulations do not impact on the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK at the point of exit; those are protected separately. All EU citizens resident in the UK by exit day will still be able to work, study and access benefits and services, whichever scenario plays out.

The instrument addresses the reality, once we leave the EU, of reciprocity and necessary legal certainty affecting EU states and those states with which the EU has association arrangements. It covers the definition of “services”, rights of establishment and the provision of services, free movement of services, and the prohibition of non-discrimination, as set out in the relevant articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and similar provisions contained in EU association agreements.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides rights for nationals of member states and is founded on the principle of reciprocal rights, including in the areas of services and establishment. If the rights were not disapplied, this would create certain legal issues for the UK. Going forward, the UK could be in breach of the WTO’s General Agreement on the Trade in Services—the most favoured nation principle.

Unilateral provision of the measures could be interpreted as granting EU nationals additional rights to challenge the UK’s laws and decisions in the future, and could restrict the Government’s ability to regulate in the future. It would also create an uneven playing field in which EU nationals benefited and UK nationals in the EU did not.

The Government have sought the widest scrutiny of this instrument. The necessary consent of the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales was sought and secured, and the Northern Ireland Civil Service has been notified.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered these regulations but chose not to report them to either House. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee chose to draw the instrument to the attention of the House, noting, in particular, compliance with WTO law and matters relating to satellite decoder cards.

To reiterate, the regulations impose no additional restrictions on EU nationals or EU-based businesses, or the nationals and businesses of countries with associated agreements, when we exit the EU, as the UK’s existing legislation is compliant with these rights. All relevant Whitehall departments have examined UK legislation to identify where direct impacts might arise from the regulations and underlying UK legislation is not already in line with the treaty rights. I am satisfied that UK legislation is compliant with the rights.

The regulations will impact on the use in the UK of satellite decoder devices intended for EU audiences—that is, dishonestly receiving programmes without payment. In essence, it brings the law into alignment with the rules for non-EU satellite decoder devices.

All EU citizens resident in the UK by exit day will still be able to work, study and access benefits and services, whatever the scenario. Further, the regulations will have no impact on the immigration regime applied to EEA, Turkish and Swiss nationals in the UK, save to ensure that changes to the immigration regime applied to Swiss nationals and Turkish nationals will come into force separately via primary legislation.

These regulations are necessary. They ensure the UK’s compliance with international law and protect the UK’s right to regulate in the future. On that basis, I commend them to the House.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the House has heard from many noble and noble and learned Lords. I rise briefly to add my support to this amendment and to put on record that the concerns set out by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and which have been elucidated by so many distinguished and legal brains, are shared more broadly across the House. Those of us without legal backgrounds rely on the expertise of the House’s Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has highlighted that removing treaty rights means that EU-plus citizens will no longer be able to use these rights to challenge new restrictions. It describes this as a, “significant reduction of rights”—yet, as we have heard, there has been no impact assessment, so we really do not know the scope and the extent of the impact of this reduction in rights.

I have two very simple questions, and they echo questions which have already been asked. First, what will be the impact of this on reciprocity and on the livelihoods of UK citizens who have established businesses in or provide services across other EU countries? Secondly, can the Minister clarify whether this does in effect apply retrospectively? As the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Greaves, pointed out, paragraph 2.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum uses phrases such as, “It is anticipated” and “it is not expected”. To this non-legal brain, that does not seem very decisive.

Similarly, in paragraph 2.17 we read:

“This Instrument ensures that Swiss nationals operating a business or providing services in the UK immediately before exit day will not lose residence rights by virtue of the disapplication of the directly effective rights”.


That clarifies residence rights, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this extends to the right to carry on owning or managing businesses or providing services, because it is not clear.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Oates, I heard the Minister twice repeat that these groups would be able to live, work, study and access services and benefits, but he specifically did not say that they would be able to continue to be self-employed, own and manage companies or provide services. Can he clarify whether this will be the case?

None of this is particularly clear, and it is not surprising that I, like other noble Lords around the House, have been written to by members of the public asking, for example, whether this means that Turkish nationals will no longer be able to own and run a Turkish restaurant.

If there really is no problem here, perhaps the Minister might agree that the Government could be a little clearer about this and clarify the intention behind the SI and its impact on EU nationals who have made their home here. The memorandum says:

“Individuals and businesses will be able to check published no deal planning guidance on gov.uk”—


which is not particularly reassuring to the people around the UK who are concerned.

The Prime Minster has made much in recent speeches and statements about the contribution of EU nationals to the UK and its prosperity, success, culture and economy. This SI seems rather at odds with this newly warm and welcoming tone.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My Lords, this has been a complicated debate, but I am drawn to the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, as a way of helping us step into the debate. Tam Dalyell was absolutely right: it is the person who will help us understand the reality who we need to hear today. The individual spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has lived in the UK for 24 years, has two children and is a photographer and athletics coach. He is an important citizen in this country. There will be no diminution of his rights—not just to study or live, but to be self-employed, to offer services or, indeed, to operate as he currently operates—as a consequence of this statutory instrument. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, at the end mentioned Turkish people who may feel that they will have their rights to operate a Turkish restaurant in some way curtailed; that is also not true.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, spoke of 2.3 million EU citizens in this country. A number of noble Lords have asked why, when so many people seem to be affected by this, the impact assessment has not been provided and has therefore not given due consideration to something that will impact 2.3 million people. The important thing to remember here is that the 2.3 million people derive their rights from that element of retained EU law that we have brought across in the previous withdrawal agreement. Each of the elements that enshrine their right to the employment they enjoy is contained not just in our domestic law but in our retained EU law.

The important thing to stress here is that there will be no impact on individuals such as the gentleman raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I am fully aware that my department has not been successful in making this clear. It is perfectly obvious that a number of noble Lords have received a number of letters stating these concerns. The very fact that my department has allowed that state to exist is a failing of my department. We need to be better at making sure that not just the legislation but the Explanatory Memorandum is adequate to ensure that people reading it—not just eminent lawyers but others—are able to understand. This is too important a moment to get this wrong.

It is a difficult piece of legislation in one respect only. There are a number of conditional elements contained within it, but they refer to future situations in which something might happen. I was going to say, “If we leave the EU”, but let me put that the other way around and get my tenses right. When we leave the EU, if there is no deal the reciprocity we enjoy today would simply fall away and not be there. Our courts would still be able to draw on the body of law that exists inside the EU, but the actual reciprocity element would not be there. Going forward, because we have retained the EU law into our own corpus of law, the reality would be that certain EU nationals might be able to invoke their existing—previous—rights as a means of confronting the Government as they sought to move future policy forward. Future policy, however, would not be determined on a whim, nor would it use a Henry VIII power. It would be determined by this House and the other place in the traditional way. That is how future policy in this area will happen.

This is the important thing to stress in talking about the impact this will have on WTO rules or the question of reciprocity. As regards WTO rules, the suggestion is that individuals in that situation, without this disapplication within this body of retained EU law, would still be able to draw on those rights in the retained EU law to challenge the UK Government. Some noble Lords may think that that is not a bad thing, but that alone is the reason for the disapplication.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I ask him a question out of genuine puzzlement, in the sense of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. His argument to the House, as I understand it, is that there is no need to worry because the individuals concerned will continue to enjoy the directly effective rights which are being brought across into our domestic law by the 2018 Act. My puzzlement is because Regulations 2(1) and 3(1) both say that any,

“rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures”,

which continue by virtue of Section 4(1) of the 2018 Act,

“cease to be recognised and available in domestic law”.

I am puzzled because I am concerned that the read-across is being disapplied by this very regulation.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

It is quite clear that we have not succeeded in convincing the noble Lord that the reality is that the retained EU law, which this House fought so carefully over and which was enshrined in the withdrawal agreement, sets out the rights of individual EU nationals in this country with regard to their ability to be employed or self-employed, to offer services and so on. That is contained in retained EU law and will become operational and functional at that point in the future.

Here we are talking about making adjustments to that retained EU law for certain rights to invoke the previous entity of the EU as a means of engaging directly with the Government as a challenge. It is that part we are talking about today.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

Would the Minister give way?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

No, I will make some progress if I may. This is complicated enough, and I fear I have to answer noble Lords’ questions before they ask new ones.

The noble Lord, Lord Oates, was very clear in some of the points he raised. That is why I am trying to be as unambiguous as I possibly can. He sought explicitness, and I am trying to give that. The self-employed will be unaffected if they are EU nationals. Those providing services will be unaffected, and their continued ability to provide those services will go undiminished. Those operating businesses will be able to do so going forward undiminished. The laws that underpin them remain as they are, both in our domestic law and in the retained EU law. There are no new restrictions whatever placed upon these individuals in this. That is why I am trying to point out that the limited impact is just that—a limited impact.

This will have no impact on the settled status of anybody coming in; for those noble Lords who are concerned about migration, this suite of statutory instruments explicitly carves out any issues of migration to ensure that they are considered carefully during the passage of the immigration Bill, which is primary legislation and will afford this House and the other place the full rights and abilities to inquire into that. So again, there is no attempt to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes—quite the reverse. In seeking to move this into primary legislation where it touches upon immigration, we are ensuring that this House has the full panoply of opportunity to explore this, as it will need to do going forward. That is why I refute the point of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, that this is a clear breach. I do not believe that it is.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is quite right when he says that this places upon us no new obligations. There are no new obligations which rest upon EU citizens; they can enjoy the rights that they have been able to do so to date. The question is whether the disapplication materially impacts on, for example, the ability of the gentleman mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to do his business. It does not. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, raised the question of the restaurateur who operates a Turkish restaurant and whether it places material changes upon them. No, it does not. It is important to stress that we are not seeking in any way to erode the rights currently enjoyed by these EU citizens. However, I should say that this would be far better addressed through an implementation agreement, and ultimately by that future relationship, whereby we can put to rest any suggestion that this Government are seeking to undermine the rights of EU individuals to undertake their legitimate exercises.

The question of what happens for UK citizens who work abroad is more challenging. Again, we cannot insist upon such reciprocity, since it rests with each individual member state, and we cannot offer guarantees on their behalf.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

I did ask my noble friend to put our minds at rest and specify what talks are happening at this time with other member states.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I wish I could give my noble friend the reassurance she seeks, but these elements remain part of the future relationship negotiations and there has been unwillingness on the part of individual member states to discuss these matters. Much as I would like to be able to give her confidence on that matter, I cannot. That will be part of the future relationship negotiations, and I hope we can move on to that as swiftly as we can.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I have listened very carefully to everything the Minister has said. He seems to be saying that nothing changes. That being the case, why are these regulations required or necessary at all, if they change nothing?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I did not say that. What I said was that these regulations have no impact upon the ability of EU nationals resident in the UK to operate, full stop. Going forward, they seek to disapply—bugger!

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

Sorry about that; that was a big fly—bigger than normal.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

It was a big fly, not a big lie.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

Goodness me, such words. I like a pun at this time.

We seem to be caught in a situation in which a number of noble Lords believe that this is of significance to the extent that it impacts upon 2.3 million people. It does not. However, if individuals affected by future changes in policy wish to confront the Government, they may be able to use elements of the existing corpus to do so, unless we disapply them. It may seem modest—I am sure the courts will be able to address this and many lawyers will make a great deal of money—but the point I am trying to make is that the change should, in the future, not happen. But it might happen. It is a relatively small adjustment we are talking about here, and it has had no impact assessment because the impact is de minimis.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

I understand that some countries are drawing up legislation to protect the rights of British citizens in those countries. That includes employment rights. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

Those countries are, at present, unwilling to open discussions with this country and will not do so until the withdrawal agreement has been accepted and we move on to the future relationship negotiations. I hope that not just individual countries will seek to do this but the EU itself, collectively, to protect the rights of British citizens resident abroad—just as we will do exactly the same. I hope we would do so in the spirit of our withdrawal agreement’s evolution into that future relationship that delivers the very thing that each individual here would wish. However, at present, I cannot offer any guarantees in that regard.

[Baroness Bull]

To follow up the question of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, we are looking today not at the scenario of a future agreement but at no-deal legislation. Surely reciprocity cannot be dependent, in this legislation, on the future relationship documentation because this is no-deal legislation. I echo the question: where is the conversation about reciprocity, should the unfortunate thing happen and we leave with no deal?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Baroness will be aware that the Government’s policy is to secure that deal. That is why we are here. The reason this has had to come forward in the manner in which it has is that, although this House and the other place have been clear that they do not wish the UK to leave with no deal—which I wholeheartedly share and endorse—that is not in our gift alone to ensure. The unintended consequences of actions that may unfold over the next few weeks could lead us into a scenario in which a no deal does emerge, and that scenario is the one we are touching on here. If it does not emerge, we will not have any of the risks we are touching on here because we will continue, I hope, to move into an implementation period during which we negotiate that future relationship. That is the point. This instrument is here because, in a scenario in which we end up outside the EU, these elements will be deemed necessary. As I said, the purpose is to ensure that in those small areas this aspect of the law is addressed.

I think I need to write—and am willing to do so—to every noble Lord who has received letters raising these concerns to set out the situation, in language clearer than my department has thus far achieved, to ensure that those individuals have confidence that they will not find themselves in any of the darker scenarios of which they may be fearful. That is critical and I give that commitment here at the Dispatch Box. If noble Lords will contact my office, I will write to every individual to ensure that they fully appreciate exactly what this suite of statutory instruments means and, in particular, what it does not mean. It is critical that that is done.

[Lord Pannick]

Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that a more sensible approach would be to withdraw these regulations and redraft them so that they say precisely what they are intended to achieve and what rights are preserved.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I disagree with the noble Lord for one simple reason. This is the moment when we face the question of whether we shall exit the EU with or without a deal. The purpose behind my offer is to reassure those individuals who fear that they will be in some way undermined in their rights in this country. They need to be reassured and I would much rather do that today. I am not sure I can sign all the letters in one go but, over the next few days, I will be keen to write to all those individuals affected. In so doing so, I hope to reassure them that this instrument does not do what they are fearful of. That is the most important aspect: this does not do what they fear it does. It is critical that it is taken from this debate, however it resolves itself, that there will be no impact on the 2.3 million EU citizens residing here; they will be in no way affected. They will be able to do their business, be it in self-employment, the operation and delivery of services or any other aspect. That must be taken from the debate today, irrespective of how we get to that conclusion.

I hope that in so doing I can not only give confidence to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, but, more importantly, give the individuals who have approached him and a number of other noble Lords the confidence that they need right now. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

The Minister has addressed a good number of questions but I raised one relating to the legal basis for these regulations, which is said to be a power to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in retained EU law. Deficiencies are precisely defined in the 2018 Act, but I have not heard from the Minister what provision of Section 8(2) or 8(3) these regulations purport to be made under, and I do not understand at the moment what the deficiency is said to be. There is some reference in the Explanatory Memorandum to the WTO but, as I understood what the Minister said earlier, the Government take no position on whether there is an incompatibility with the WTO.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who has given me the opportunity to find the other pieces of paper that I did not get to in answering his question.

With regard to which provision, it is a deficiency specifically envisaged by Section 8(1)(e) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which covers the reciprocal arrangements that no longer exist on EU exit. That is the specific element that I think the noble Lord is looking for. In extension to that, on why this has a limited impact—on which a number of noble Lords have taken the view that I am wrong and that it has a much bigger impact—I hope we can correct that today, irrespective of how we do it. The important thing is that the practical impact of these regulations is limited because UK legislation is currently compliant. That is the important part. However, should a future Government wish to amend the ability of EU nationals to provide services, that would be debated in this House and in the other place in the normal manner. This suite of statutory instruments is designed to address future Governments making future legislation by the established mechanisms in this place and the other place—not, as I hope we can take from this, the impact on the 3.2 million EU nationals who reside in the UK.

[Lord Greaves]

At a less erudite level, what advice is currently given to these people on GOV.UK?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

GOV.UK is a resource which I hope helps people address their questions. Part of the difficulty with GOV.UK is that it is very hard to anticipate questions that have not been set out in government legislation. We did not anticipate that individuals who have written would be fearful of what had been done. That is why I say again that we must be better at how we explain this in all our communications, whether online or on paper, and in the Explanatory Memorandum. The important thing for individuals to take from this debate is that the impact on them is not what has been explored or explained by others but rather a restricted aspect of future issues that concern future government policy or the ability of the WTO and the UK going forward to agree on most favoured nations.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, as I have been sitting and enjoying this debate, I have been reflecting on why the other 582—is it?—SIs on a no-deal Brexit did not attract audiences of this size and did not give rise to a debate of such excitement. I have reached no firm conclusions, but it is possibly because we as a House are reaching the end of our patience with the Government in how they use these regulations at a time when it is patently clear that we are moving on to different ground.

Having said that, this has been an extremely good debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury got it right in his contribution: while we are talking about important and possibly quite narrow legislation, this is really about trust—whether we feel we can place our trust in the Government to get this right in the wider context that we have been discussing. Although the Minister made a valiant attempt to persuade us of the correctness of his position, in his arguments, explanations, apologies for not making it more easily available to people outside and apologies for the drafting, he covered all the possible grounds for attack, but did not really answer the two or three main questions.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we are disapplying one set of regulations and relying on what has already been brought in under a different piece of legislation. You cannot have it both ways. Either you are losing the rights that applied under the original position, in which case there is a deficit, or different sets of relationships are being brought in by the new corpus of law, which has drawn on EU and UK national law. There might be no threat in that, but we simply have not had the opportunity to discuss it. At the end of the day, the lasting feeling, I fear, is of people’s frustration. The points that have been raised around the House from reading these documents at very short notice—in some cases, the shortest possible notice—have been significant and substantial, and they deserved a better and wider hearing in front of a greater and more expert group, such as would have been provided by primary legislation.

Therefore, my three main points are as follows. First, were the Government right to use the EU withdrawal Bill? I do not think that we have been persuaded on that: there would have been a better way of doing it through primary legislation. Secondly, will there be a diminution in the rights currently enjoyed by people affected by this SI? The Minister is probably right that there are no direct changes, but it is the fear of those changes and the fear of the possible consequences once the law has changed that is not being addressed properly. As I said, I do not see how we can balance the two things. Thirdly, in our earlier meeting, the Minister’s officials were keen to make it very clear that these regulations deal only with movement under the EU legislative framework; they do not deal with immigration rights that will be coming forward. At the end of the day, this is about the gap between what it is being said will change and what might change under the immigration Bill, of which we have no knowledge because it is not in front of us.

The Government have not been successful in the court of public opinion, and we owe it to that public opinion to test the opinion of the House.

Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 September be approved.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, it is like I have never been away. This statutory instrument amends the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Amendment & Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2015. The existing legislation supports the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries by exempting eligible businesses from a proportion of the costs of funding renewable electricity. This instrument amends the existing legislation to: include the manufacture of grain mill products; clarify the application of state aid requirements which exclude firms in difficulty from the scheme; and improve the scheme’s overall operation.

The sectors eligible for the existing exemption scheme employ over 300,000 workers and account for more than a quarter of total UK exports. Many are located in areas of economic disadvantage and provide good, well-paid jobs. While our industrial gas price is internationally competitive, our electricity prices for medium and large industrial users are the highest in western Europe and have been for some time. Clearly, electricity costs have a significant impact on the competitiveness of such enterprises. The industries affected operate in international markets, so higher electricity costs place them at a competitive disadvantage, resulting in the risk of carbon leakage, which is when companies choose to move their production to countries with less ambitious climate policies.

Existing legislation covering energy-intensive industries allows eligible businesses to receive an indirect exemption of up to 85% of the costs of funding renewable electricity schemes. When an eligible business applies successfully for the exemption, its electricity supplier receives a reduction in the costs which it passes on to the eligible business. This approach mitigates the cost of the renewable electricity schemes, supports industrial competitiveness and provides certainty for businesses. The costs of the exemption are distributed to other electricity users.

As I said, the regulations add the grain mill products sector, as it now meets the criteria for inclusion in the scheme. The regulations clarify the information that applicants must give to enable the department to assess their eligibility. They also improve the scheme by ensuring that a business that uses a new meter will have to accrue only three months of data before applying; and that, when electricity meters are shared by more than one business, the proportion of electricity which is exempted will be updated more rapidly. Certificates will now expire at the end of June rather than March, thereby reducing the risk of businesses facing a gap in receiving the exemption. Businesses are also now able to submit their quarterly reports on any day of the quarter, resulting in increased flexibility for them.

In conclusion, these regulations will extend and improve the existing legislation and support the competitiveness of energy-intensive manufacturing industries in the UK. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I am interested that the Minister did not mention carbon leakage, because that is absolutely the core of what this is about. It is about reducing our own carbon footprint. If industry migrates to China or to south-east Asia, that has no effect in any way on global emissions even though it reduces our carbon footprint. At that point we lose employment and all the advantages of business that he outlined.

There is a completely different and topical approach to this issue. Professor Dieter Helm, in his report earlier this year or at the end of last year to the department, said that one of the things that needs to happen if we are serious about electricity prices, energy prices and a carbon-neutral economy is that we should have external carbon tariffs. On our European position, whether we are inside or outside, it is interesting that the President-elect of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said that external carbon tariffs were a way forward as a core part of her Green Deal package for Europe. Whether we have equivalence when we are outside is another question.

Has the Minister’s department looked at all strategically at this question, rather than fiddling around with which industry, sector, business, conglomerate or corporate should be in this definition? I have no idea why flour milling should be, but it is great that it needs to be. I have no argument with that. I have not come across that industry in this context before. Would moving forward in this external way not solve all these problems at a stroke? I suspect that a lot more might be produced internationally, but it seems the direction of travel.

I am not sure that the Minister mentioned businesses in distress, which are now excluded from this for state aid reasons. I do not necessarily disagree with it, but I want to understand it more. Has that exemption been used in the past? Perhaps we can understand some examples and what effect it had.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

The contracts for difference scheme demands that certain high-energy industries pay what is in effect a tax to fund a levy to help subsidise and encourage the generation and production of renewable electricity. Within the scheme, energy-intensive industries, or EIIs, can apply for an exemption from having to pay. This SI adds flour milling to the list of those industries eligible to apply for an exemption, to help the milling industry remain internationally competitive—what you might call flour power.

The SI also seeks to hasten the responsiveness to applicants seeking such exemptions. Where a meter is used for shared purposes either within or between companies, it allows speedier and more accurate removal from the scheme of those activities which do not qualify for such a reduction. It extends EII certificates from the end of March to the end of June each year, giving business more time to report and lessening the chance of a gap between reporting and granting of exemptions

I have some questions. Does the scheme apply to all flour millers and all flour milled, or is it restricted to flour milled for the human food chain only? Graded grains make finer flour, as the phrase goes. Is the scheme just for human-chain flour, or is it for other flour used for animal feed purposes? Is the Minister satisfied that the changes proposed in the scheme will ensure the long-term future of the flour milling industry internationally as well as helping to stabilise food security post Brexit?

The next review of the EII scheme is not due until 2023. Given the Government’s welcome shortening of their climate change targets, should not this review also be brought forward to determine any revisions that may be necessary to the scheme to help meet these obligations?

I understand that the feed-in tariffs scheme closed in April 2018, so why does paragraph 2.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum state that eligible EIIs,

“are also eligible for reductions in the costs of funding two other policies that support renewable electricity generation, namely the Renewables Obligation (RO) (in England and Wales and in Scotland) and the small-scale Feed-In Tariff (FIT) schemes”?

If that scheme has closed, why does the Explanatory Memorandum use an active word, or has the scheme been replaced and renewed in ways that we have not yet heard?

The Government announced a control mechanism for low carbon levies in 2017: in effect, that they would have to prove that they were value for money. Can the Minister provide any up-to-date assessment of that decision?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

It has been a remarkably short and sweet debate. Long may such debates continue. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that I did mention carbon leakage, as it happens.

[Lord Teverson]

I apologise.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

Not at all. The noble Lord is quite right in one respect: the notion of carbon leakage is potentially worse for global emissions, because moving from an area where there are high standards to one where they are lower runs the risk of one’s emissions being increased.

The issue of carbon border tariffs is fascinating. I spent a great deal of time as a Member of the European Parliament and a rapporteur looking at carbon border tariffs around the emissions trading scheme. The challenge with that was that, even at an EU level, it was hard to get a consensus to support it. I do not want to set any hares running, but I want to consider it carefully because we cannot rule anything out in the future.

However, the present scheme is designed as best we can to ensure a level of competitiveness, which I think we can appreciate. We need to recognise where the energy-intensive industries can become more efficient and thereby reduce their emissions, and where there are certain process emissions which are simply the output of an equation in chemistry and will always produce a certain number of carbon dioxide molecules. There are important things that we need to explore.

On businesses in distress, an example that might fit here is the steel industry but, in truth, it would have qualified even had it not been in distress, because it was already within the carbon intensives. We are looking at the supply chain, as we drop down from the larger sector to the smaller parts of the supply chain which may be in distress as a consequence of a bigger impact somewhere higher up. Rather than me simply saying this, I will write to the noble Lord to set this out in some detail and I will happily place a copy of that in the Library so that he can see exactly where that rests.

The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, relating to the flour mills themselves is an interesting one, because it is a question that I also asked myself. Do all flour mills automatically qualify? The answer is, no, they do not; they still have to meet the obligations set inside. A flour mill would be eligible to take part because it is now within an industry that is recognised as qualifying, but the individual mill itself would still have to meet the criteria to qualify for inclusion in order to secure the benefits. That would apply to all sectors, so it is not an automatic inclusion, although some industries or sectors are pretty much in their entirety all within that.

As to the longer-term question, I would hope that this will help flour milling to be competitive at the European and global levels. Food security remains one of the prime considerations across the EU and here at home. On the issue of whether we will review this, I think we should in fact be constantly reviewing these issues. I appreciate that my making that statement and a review actually occurring might not be hand in glove, but I recognise that, on the glide path to COP 26 next year in Glasgow, we should look at all our obligations in this regard to make sure that they are all being delivered as expected. If we are not careful, we could become complacent and simply rely upon that which worked in the past. We want to make sure that it works going forward.

When the noble Lord raised the question of feed-in tariffs, I also had a little twinkle in the back of my mind that they were closed. They are in fact closed to new entrants but there are existing recipients who benefit from the payments, and that is why they are cited in the body of the Explanatory Memorandum. They are few in number and, if the noble Lord would like, I will happily set out how many still qualify under the feed-in tariff scheme within this wider obligation.

On that basis, I think I am content to move these regulations forward.

Motion agreed.

Post Offices: Cash Withdrawal Services

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

I beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are disappointed by the withdrawal of Barclays from the renegotiated banking framework. None the less, the new banking framework will enable customers to access their cash from 27 high street banks. The Government will continue to ensure that communities receive support and have choice about how they manage their finances.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Rural communities rely on access to finance, but in many rural areas where there is poor broadband or weak mobile signal, online banking is impossible. This is a fundamental issue for our rural areas. What representations have Her Majesty’s Government made to Barclays Bank, and what will we do if other banks decide to follow its lead?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The right reverend Prelate asks an important point: does this set a precedent? I certainly hope not. I would like to think that customers affected will reflect carefully on whether they should continue banking with Barclays. I am fully aware of the issues faced by those in the rural communities of which he speaks.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that other countries, including France, the Netherlands and New Zealand, have saved much of their rural post office network by supporting their role as deliverers of financial services? Is he further aware that there are now more post offices in rural England than all the banks put together? In some areas of rural England, only post offices are serving the financial needs of local traders. Will the Government please offer some financial or fiscal incentive for Post Office Counters Ltd and all the banks to work together to ensure that the future of their local traders and communities is safe?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord is correct. Since 2010 we have invested £2.3 billion in the Post Office network, stabilising the number of banks. There was a 27% decrease in the 10 years before 2014. The decrease since then has been only 1%—the money is making a difference.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the idea of changing a bank is a bit more daunting than he has suggested? Particularly if you are struggling on a daily basis to stay out of the red, the idea of going to a new bank can be intimidating. It seems that some banks are interested only in big cashless customers who have large deposits and not really anybody else. Will the Minister raise these concerns with Barclays Bank and ask it to think again? The banks are making life difficult, not only for people in rural communities but for those in inner cities and the peripheral schemes where paying cash machine charges is extortionate.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate asked what representation we have made. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has spoken to Barclays in words of only one syllable, I am afraid. She has made this point very clear to them: this behaviour is not acceptable. This is not about corporate banking; this is about rural communities and, sometimes, these are the most important aspects of rural communities.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I understand that some of the major banks are making it extremely difficult for small organisations to retain their bank accounts when, for instance, they change their bank mandate. Can the Minister tell the House whether the banks have a responsibility to serve their communities in this way, or will these accounts be treated in the same cavalier way that Barclays has treated them in rural communities? If they are, where will these organisations go for their banking?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Baroness puts her finger right on it. Banks are not just about serving customers; they are about serving communities as well. When small organisations are unable to secure that banking, they will struggle. If she has specific examples, I welcome them being raised with me and I will raise each of them directly with the individual bank concerned.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, would it be possible for the Prime Minister to write to the chairman of Barclays Bank on this matter—perhaps with his signature at the bottom of the letter this time?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My noble friend asks a very good question. I will certainly have that discussion—and you never know.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, does this Question not also raise the problem about access to cash more generally? I am sure the Minister is familiar with the Access to Cash review. I wonder whether the department is in a position yet to respond to that. In that excellent review were six recommendations, which focused on the fact that new fintech is often designed for mass markets and does not reach out to the poor, those who live in rural communities and the vulnerable. Of the recommendations, the fifth and most important was for a clear government policy on cash, supported by a joined-up regulatory approach that treats cash as a utility, which I think is what the noble Lord was saying at the end. Is this in progress?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I can assure the noble Lord that this is, indeed, in progress.

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that we inquired into this subject in our report on financial exclusion a couple of years ago? When faced with the question of closing banks, the banks virtually unanimously said, “We consult widely”. We did not find one single branch that had been left open as a result of consultation. They are merely ticking boxes. They then faced us with the fact that the post offices would take on their business, and now they are withdrawing it. As much as we condemn it here, we have to do more than that. The banks are letting communities down and it is no good simply condemning them. Will the Government not take some action that forces them to be part of our communities?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Viscount is right: a consultation matters only if its results are taken forward. I will reflect carefully on what he has said. I believe there is an obligation that should fall on banks to respect their customers and treat them with the decency they deserve.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, while we can deprecate the actions of certain banks in this sense, should we not also congratulate those commercial and retail outlets, such as petrol stations and others, that are installing ATMs and providing these services in rural areas as well as in urban ones? I think particularly of the Co-op and other owners of garages around the country, which are doing just that.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My noble friend is correct. Banking is changing and we need to reflect on how our future banking needs will be met: perhaps not through the traditional means of marble-fronted buildings but in a much more diverse way, both in reality and online. We need to consider how banking will look in five, 10, 15 and 20 years’ time.