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

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 14th December 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

13: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Review: inward investment into the United Kingdom(1) A Minister of the Crown must publish a review of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP Chapter on investment on inward investment into the United Kingdom.(2) The review under subsection (1) should include a consultation of such persons the Minister of the Crown considers appropriate.(3) The review under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every 12 months thereafter.”

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this second day of Committee on the CPTPP. In doing so, I declare my financial services interests as adviser to Ecospend Ltd and LEMI Ltd.

I will speak to Amendments 13 and 14 in my name. I also give a nod to the other amendments in this group and look forward to their introduction by noble Lords. In short, the purpose of my amendment is rooted in one simple premise: we need to increase our cross-border trade in financial services with other CPTPP nations. We have an extraordinary opportunity to do so. Chapter 11 of the CPTPP sets out the financial services requirements in the treaty and, as in any treaty, we need to play to our strengths. Financial services are obviously one such strength.

If I could have got it within the scope of the Bill, my amendment would have talked about strategies rather than impact assessments, because that is ultimately what we need here. However, for the purposes of these amendments, we are limited to impact assessments. In many ways, this is a development of many of the discussions we had on the Financial Services and Markets Bill 2023, not least what we achieved in your Lordships’ House in pushing through the international competitiveness secondary objective for the regulator. These amendments fit squarely with that intention and what we can achieve internationally with our financial services firms and ecosystem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I will not get drawn into the debate on that, but I think that would be 1,800%, rather than 180%. However, the point is that the noble Lord is right to raise the matter of the estimated expected costs compared with the actual costs today, and the deflationary impact of global trade on some of our developing nation partners and the importance of ensuring that it can be mitigated in some way, regardless of the other trade deals that we are pursuing. I am grateful for his point.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I thank all noble Lords who participated and the Minister for his response. I was pleased that financial services and environmental concerns were grouped together, because that is, in many ways, the fundamental point that is often missed. There is no purpose in talking about financial services and finance without ESG being gold-threaded through it all. I can sum up today’s debate, in many ways, as: what purpose profit if no planet to spend it on? I again thank all noble Lords who took part and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 5th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register, as an adviser to Ecospend Ltd and Boston Ltd respectively, and as a member of the board at Channel Four Television Corporation. I would like to talk briefly about the opportunity, then the Bill at large and then make some points on specific elements within it as currently constructed.

There exists a huge opportunity for the UK with the new technologies that we have available to us. If we conceive of them as tools in our human hands—yes, incredibly powerful tools but in our human hands, led by our human heads and hearts—that will give us the greatest chance of success for small, medium and potentially successful unicorn businesses, right across the United Kingdom. Some of the greatest elements of these technologies are that you do not necessarily have to be in the capital, or indeed in a city at all; you can have an international business with a laptop and a decent broadband connection from your bedroom. When we look at how we can combine those new technologies with the great good fortune of the United Kingdom’s financial services sector, and perhaps the most prized and often underrated good fortune that we have, which is English common law, the potential that we have individually and collectively as a nation—one that is looking out to connect internationally—is as good as infinite.

What we really need to see as a golden thread running through the Bill is that everything we do in this space is inclusive by design. Everything is predicated on the fundamental truth that it is our data—our decisions, our intellectual property and our copyrighted content. None of these platforms or huge businesses has very much at all without our data, our ID and our copyrighted content. We need to address, legislate and regulate for this fundamental truth.

The Bill itself is not small and it is getting bigger. Perhaps more concerning from a parliamentary perspective is that, when it entered Second Reading in the House of Commons, it had 35 Henry VIII clauses. As we start Second Reading here, that number has risen to 43. I calculate that to be a Tudorian rate of inflation of around 23%. I ask my noble friend the Minister: is this the way the Government wish to legislate? Does it make sense to have an increasing number of such clauses in our primary legislation? As we already have 43 of them, will the Minister confirm that they will all be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure?

It is a big Bill, and noble Lords have covered many of the issues eloquently and effectively at this stage. I will go relatively rapidly over a few areas I think are worthy of consideration. First, on the Competition and Markets Authority, our regulators are nothing if not independent. We have some of the most respected regulators around the world, but, if their independence is even perceived to be called into question, they and we have a problem. As we saw in our discussions during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, independence should never be confused with accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. It is absolutely essential that the regulators must be accountable to Parliament. There must be the right scrutiny mechanisms in place. As we heard earlier in the debate, we need that level of expert input so that a parliamentary Select Committee can effectively hold these regulators to account.

So that is accountability and scrutiny: good. But, on encroaching on independence, perhaps less so. Is it wise, as currently constructed in the Bill, for the Secretary of State to have sign-off powers over the guidance that will come from the regulator? That seems to go well beyond any sort of normal arrangement between government and an independent regulator. Similarly, when talking about the CMA, the Bill is peppered with references to proportionality and being proportionate, but the CMA already has to operate in a proportionate manner. So what do these additional references to proportionality add? Do they not potentially lead to confusion and less clarity for both the regulator and those who will find themselves regulated?

As many noble Lords have commented on, I am similarly concerned by the introduction of the full merits test when it comes to fines issued by the regulator. It is fairly clear, as the Bill is currently constructed, where the difference is between full merits and JR. But why are we taking a full merits approach when no other economic regulator has such an approach put upon it? We do not even need to reach back 25 years, or five years indeed, into history. Why do we not go for one of the most recent pieces of legislation, which many noble Lords present were involved with—the Online Safety Act? When it comes to fines issued by Ofcom, there is no full merits procedure there. Why are we looking at a different approach in this piece of legislation, as it is currently drafted?

Moving on to pricing and payments, the Government have spoken often, and rightly, around the present problem of drip pricing. Yet there is currently nothing in the Bill to address it. I ask my noble friend the Minister why this is. Would this Bill not offer the ideal opportunity to address the practice of drip pricing, which so many people find themselves on the wrong end of? Similarly, when looking at leveraging principles, would we not wish to strengthen the Bill in that respect? Otherwise, the potential danger is that—to take the app example so eloquently pointed out by my friend the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth—those prices, that 30%, simply gets moved and applied to a different part of the ecosystem. It could be moved, applied again, and thus nothing would be achieved from this legislation as currently constructed.

As other noble Lords have commented, I agree that we have to address the issue around charities and gift aid. I would probably be more in the camp of my noble friend Lord Kamall, in that we should consider this carefully, rather than simply saying “There’s an issue around Gift Aid” and drafting a blanket exemption. We want to consider this carefully and come up with some more elegant drafting around this point.

As I already stated, none of this is anything if it is not predicated on being inclusive by design. A key strand within that is obviously accessibility. There is a real problem with the Bill as currently constructed if we want all these markets and platforms to be accessible for all. Although Clause 20(2)(C) talks about the information describing the activity needing to be accessible, the Bill does not require the activities—the platforms themselves—to be accessible. Buildings were designed 500 years ago with no thought of accessibility or disabled people, yet, in the main, they have now been made pretty accessible. For example, take the Palace of Westminster—a grade 1 listed building. It is not perfect by any means, but it is pretty accessible, and a great job of work has been done. Why would we seek to rebuild steps and inaccessibility in cyberspace when all these markets are constructed, if you will, on completely greenfield sites?

Inaccessibility and exclusion will happen if the concept of “inclusive by design” is not written right through every element of the development and deployment of these platforms, and thus into the digital markets we describe. So would it not make sense to look at, for example, the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018, and seek to draft some amendments to that effect so that we truly have not just accessibility around the information but accessibility around the activity, service, platform and market? Those regulations are more effectively drafted and are practically implementable. They look to the international web of accessibility guidelines. Would the Government not wish all the platforms and everything in this digital markets Bill to be rooted in such firm grounding?

In some final collected thoughts, I will also comment on the right to repair. In your Lordships’ House and the other place, rightly we often talk about resource and resource matters. But we should also talk much more about resourcefulness, and how we make optimum use of the resource we have. It seems perfectly logical and timely, if not urgent, to have something in this legislation around a right to repair. Similarly, can I ask my noble friend the Minister what the budget will be for the DMU? It is being given quite a task. Although we have a full range of regulators across many sectors of our economy and society, one significant issue, which cannot be denied, is that if we do not fund them to the right level, we cannot then criticise or be disappointed if they are unable to do their job as Parliament intended. Similarly, when will the Government look to quantify many of the measures set out in the Bill—currently largely white space?

Finally, we are talking about ex ante regulation, or EAR. We need to ensure that everybody is listening when we reach Committee, and we can then approach the Bill collectively, in a participatory manner and with those golden threads of inclusive by design and those fundamental truths again—that it is our data, our decisions, our legislation, our regulation and our digital futures.

Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the (1) economic, and (2) environmental, benefits arising from the Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023; and what plans they have to communicate those benefits to relevant stakeholders, including small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my financial services and technology interests as set out in the register.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

The Electronic Trade Documents Act will provide an economic boost estimated at just over £1 billion over a decade, substantially reducing paper use. We are the first G7 country to put digital and paper trade documents on an equal footing. Given the international prominence of English law, this will kick-start digitalisation globally. We advocate similar change by trading partners. We will support businesses through international trade advisers, trade and investment hubs and initiatives promoting digitalisation, including the Centre for Digital Trade and Innovation.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Electronic Trade Documents Act offers us the potential of combining our common-law tradition with our expertise in new technologies such as blockchain and our excellent financial services ecosystem? Does he agree that we must work to ensure that everybody in the business department communicates through every channel—particularly to SMEs in the UK—the opportunity that exists through this Act and, similarly, that all our missions overseas communicate to companies and politicians around the world to enable them to see the benefits of passing similar legislation? As my noble friend the Minister knows, it takes two to trade.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for those comments and questions. This is a quite remarkable Act. In fact, it is the only Act of Parliament that I have read from beginning to end. It is only four pages long and 1,500 words; I recommend it for its brevity and its conciseness. It simply does one thing, which is to take the architecture of 300-plus years of mercantile trading which has been done in paper form and translate that into digital to have the same legal impact. The onus is now on the Department for Business and Trade to communicate this to our SMEs, as my noble friend indicated. To that end, we are using international trade advisers and the International Chamber of Commerce, and we have set up the Centre for Digital Trade and Innovation at Teesside University. A lot of work will now be done to raise awareness of this, which will be for the great benefit of our trade.

Digital Economy Agreements

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Monday 24th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many digital economy agreements the United Kingdom has made and with which countries; and how many are expected by 31 December.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare my technology interests as set out in the register.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (The Earl of Minto) (Con)]

My Lords, under the UK’s G7 presidency we brokered the G7’s digital trade principles. Further digital agreements sit at the heart of our agreements with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, EEA/EFTA and CPTPP. Our digital agreements with Singapore and Ukraine are the most innovative trade deals signed. We continue to push our digital objectives at the WTO e-commerce joint initiative and via the digital trade commitments in our suite of upcoming free trade agreements.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that digital economy agreements represent the very future of trade? We must ensure particularly that small and medium-sized enterprises are fully aware of this opportunity. Does he further agree that when we put DEAs together with the recently passed Electronic Trade Documents Act, we can really believe that we are on the brink of a new golden age for international trade?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

I entirely agree with my noble friend. Our vision is for the UK to be a global leader in digital trade, with an entire network of international agreements that drive economic growth, create jobs and improve productivity throughout the UK.

Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate. I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. I congratulate the Boltonians in this House and another place on bringing this important Bill to Parliament. Similarly, I congratulate Kevin Hollinrake, the officials and all the team who have worked so hard to get it to this stage. I support the Bill. It does precisely what a Private Member’s Bill should do: it is simple, straightforward, clear, concise and will have such a positive benefit once it comes swiftly into statute.

We have over a million vacancies in the labour market, and well over 500,000 people who left work during Covid have not returned. The question for us this morning is, quite simply: flexible working—why would you not? Covid was something which very few generations will ever live through. It was a once-in-a-century—if that—cataclysmic set of circumstances, and for work it was similarly so. Coming out of that, we must take all of that experience into how we think about work and structure it, and how we fundamentally underline the essential truth of work and employment: that it is a relationship. It should never be seen as simply transactional; it is relational. That is why there is a lot of writing, understandably, around hybrid working and lots for all of us to think about. One thing must be clear to all of us, coming out of Covid: work or employment cannot mean five days a week, 8 am until 6 pm, in the office—but nor can it mean five days a week at home on Teams, on your tod. That is not what work is about. It is about relationships.

When we consider this whole question of flexible work, ultimately, what are we talking about? We are talking about talent. Would not any organisation want to try to secure the brightest, best talent for any role? Research shows that where flexible work is mentioned in job ads, 30% more applications come in. It makes sense. It is not about where work takes place; it is more about how we experience work, what it feels like, how it is structured and, fundamentally, how it is made human. That has to be one of the greatest things we can take from Covid: how to make work more human.

To my mind, the greatest champion of flexible working is probably still the great Dame Stephanie Shirley. At the time, she saw an opportunity in having female workers at home who would be able to contribute so fabulously to the technology business she was building while being able to run their family lives as well. That is still the most sensational example of the strength that flexible working can bring, both to the individual and to the business, if understood and gone about as part of a respectful conversation. The Bill talks about the consultation. Really, that is a respectful conversation between employer and employee, with no preconceptions being brought to bear before that conversation around the request takes place.

For disabled people, flexible working would make an immediate difference, because things change. Circumstances change. Many disabled people successfully manage fluctuating conditions, but flexible working would just be so helpful in the face of that. It would not mean that disabled people would be doing less or being given a free pass—not a bit of it. It is more about being able to fully contribute and give of their talents. Again, why would any business pay a 100% salary to somebody but have a workplace and practices, policies and procedures which enable that person to be only 70%, 60%, 50% or 40% themselves in that working environment? It just makes no economic, social or psychological sense.

In 2018, I was asked to undertake an investigation—a review—into public appointments and how we could make them more open for disabled talents. So many of the suggestions that came up in the sessions, conversations and round tables I had with disabled people up and down the country were about flexible working or a flexible approach. When I published the report in 2018, at times it was almost like I was speaking a strange language to some audiences. I hope that Covid has changed that for the better, and that flexible working is surely now more the norm.

When looking at other pieces of research out there—understandably, there is plenty of it—we see that where employees feel that they have more control, their stress is less and their feeling of connection to work and to their employer is increased. To that I say: flexible working. When people say that they feel they have a friend or a connection at work, productivity goes up, attrition goes down, and benefits for employee and employer alike are raised. Flexible working: why would you not?

While we have my noble friend the Minister on the subject of employment, it would be wrong of me not to give a slight note on unpaid internships, which are connected to this subject. As we are bringing a number of these small, discrete, specific pieces of employment relations legislation through, I ask my noble friend: is it not high time to bring forward a Bill to ban unpaid internships, particularly for our young people who are currently asked to give of their time for free for months? That cannot be right; it cannot be part of the society and economy that we want to build and be part of in this country.

Finally, the algorithmic elephant that is all too often in the room in so many of our discussions: AI, machine learning, LLM—whatever we choose to call it—is having a profound effect already, not least on work and employment. If we just look at this morning’s newspapers, we see the headlines screaming out: “Bloodbath of AI impact on employment”, with the BT decision yesterday. Should we accept that prophecy of doom: the sense that the bots are coming, our jobs are going, we are all off to hell and we are not even sure there is a handcart? I do not think so. We should be neither Panglossian nor terrified about the prospects, we should be evidence-based and rationally optimistic about what we as humans, individually and collectively, can do alongside AI and all the new technologies, which are in our human hands. They are incredibly powerful and certainly could do a lot of harm and damage, not least to the labour market, but we should conceive of them, in essence, as tools, incredibly powerful tools but tools in our human hands. If we do not make a success of AI and all the new technologies in our human hands, that will be a human failure on our part, not a failure of the technologies.

The opportunity is clear. If we get it right, we can have the augmented worker. The critical point for all of us to focus on is the transition—as some parts of the labour market get hollowed out, how we intervene to support and help to transition those individuals and communities to the new opportunities that I believe will come through. Transition, transition, transition is where government should be focused if we are to make a success of AI and all the other new technologies in our human hands.

I support this Private Member’s Bill: it is simple, straightforward, clear and concise. Flexible working is not for disabled people, although it is of great benefit to us; it is not for carers, although it is of great benefit to us. Flexible working is a benefit to all people at some stage.