Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Monday 23rd January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it may be that I am not paying sufficiently close attention, but it struck me as rather odd that the starting point was a discussion of the advice that was given to the Secretary of State on 13 April last year by the Trade and Agriculture Commission in relation to the Australia deal and on 16 June last year to the Secretary of State on the New Zealand deal. The purpose of that advice was to answer a number of questions. To characterise them generally, they were, “Do these agreements undermine our statutory protections and our ability to protect animal welfare and human health?”—and, to characterise again, the short answer in each case was “No, it does not”. So it seems me that the starting point, not least of Amendment 3, is undermined. It seems wholly unreasonable to ask for a report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission when the TAC has already had the opportunity to give its advice to the Secretary of State.

The second thing that is missing from the debate so far is that Ministers have been very clear, not least in the letter that I think was sent to the International Trade Committee in the other place and to our International Agreements Committee, that they are committed to a monitoring report on both these agreements every two years and to a comprehensive evaluation five years after the coming into force. Some of these amendments look for earlier and more frequent reporting. I have to say, earlier reporting seems to be misplaced. It is going to take time to understand the impacts of these agreements, not least because, for example, the tariff rate quotas that are available for some of these products have not yet been absorbed, so the starting point for thinking about what is the base case for the impact of the agreements must at least allow for the possibility that, in the absence of the agreements, there might have been some increased importing from Australia and New Zealand using existing TRQs.

The third thing I want to say is about George Eustice, who I like. We have worked together, and I enjoyed working with him, but I have to say two things. Number one, if you subscribe to my view of collective responsibility—I see former Ministers in their places—it does not stop when you leave the Government subsequently. You subscribe to collective responsibility when you enter into government and you enter into collective decision-making. In my view, I stick to that—even, in my case, extending it to my coalition friends. If George Eustice did not agree with the decision that was made in relation to either of these agreements, the time to leave the Government and to leave collective responsibility was then, not at a subsequent point when he is on the Back Benches.

The second point to make about him—clearly, he said things that people will say are interesting for the future, not least on the setting of deadlines, while the Government have moved away from that idea—is that the principal argument he made about the risks associated with the agreement and food standards was the risk of the importation of hormone-fed beef. His argument that this was a risk was only because we might subsequently enter into the CPTPP and, under it, we might be subject to an investor state dispute resolution that would force us to dispense with our ban on the import of hormone-fed beef. These are extremely unlikely propositions. As the TAC made absolutely clear, despite the fact that a proportion of beef cattle in Australia are fed hormone growth promoters, none of them—nor their products—may be imported to this country, because we have a ban. So the risk presently does not arise.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

That is the heart of the problem—as we will go on to consider in the next set of amendments. Since we left the European Union, there have been no checks at our frontiers to show to what extent the meat coming into this country observes the criteria to which my noble friend referred.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My noble friend simply makes the point that the Government should implement the legislation that exists. We have no need to change the legislation to ban the import of hormone-fed beef or the use of hormone growth promoters on beef imported into this country, since the legislation already exists. The point is its implementation—and messing about with this Bill does not change that at all.

I have one final point. As I turn to the CPTPP and sheep farmers, I should say that my sister-in-law is a sheep farmer in north Wales. She may take a view about the New Zealand agreement, principally because of lamb imports, but she has never mentioned it to me. She probably thinks that it is a pretty remote risk compared with the many risks that she has to put up with on a daily basis.

I am UK chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group; my noble friend Lord Howell, who is sitting on the Front Bench, was one of my predecessors. My Japanese friends tell me that we are making good progress on our potential accession to the CPTPP. There are clearly issues. In this context, if one were critical of the Government, it would be on the risks associated with the precedent of tariff liberalisation—to the extent that it was offered in these agreements—being used by other counterparties as a basis for their negotiations, not least through the CPTPP. They may seek that in the schedules that they are looking for from us before we are allowed to accede to the CPTPP. Notwithstanding that reservation, in the view of my Japanese friends, other aspects of the negotiations stand a fair chance of being completed in the first half of this year.

On the basis of what the Government have already said about impact assessment and reporting in the future, I think the amendments in this group in particular are not required.

Public Procurement (International Trade Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to say a few words about these regulations and I thank my noble friend for introducing them so clearly. As somebody who laboured long and hard on the Trade Act 2021, it is always a pleasure to see the powers being used. There may not be many such further events but it is interesting to see it being used in this case.

I must confess that the reason I looked at these regulations was that, as my noble friend will recall, at Second Reading of the Procurement Bill I raised the interaction between that legislation and the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill, which had, of course, been introduced at the same time in the other place. I looked at this instrument and thought, “How does this relate to the Procurement Bill?” Like the Australia and New Zealand Bill, as far as I can see, the Procurement Bill will supersede these regulations when it becomes law. Schedule 9 to the Procurement Bill incorporates the UK-EFTA agreement into the list of treaty state suppliers. So far, so fairly straightforward: we need these regulations to give effect to the agreement in the intervening period.

However, there is an issue about what these regulations do, because they also amend public contract, concession contract and utilities contract regulations to include the further provision relating to abnormally low tenders. It is a question of whether the price or costs take into account the grant of subsidies. First, I ask: does the preceding EU-EFTA economic area agreement have the same language? It seemed surprising if it did, on the face of it, because existing regulations, which are part of the structure of EU regulation, already take account of whether—to cite Regulation 69 of the Public Contracts Regulations, for example—the abnormally low tender price is because of the possibility of the tenderer obtaining state aid.

I should have thought that, in the EU context, the question of state aid and grant of subsidy were regarded as effectively the same thing. I suspect, therefore, that EFTA countries are saying that the words “state aid” do not necessarily have the same meaning in United Kingdom in future as “state aid” did in the EU in the past. I may be wrong about that, but I should be interested to know whether that is the case.

Anyway, this additional provision in the regulations changes, for example, Regulation 69 of the Public Contracts Regulations, which relates to abnormally low tenders. I thought, “Let’s see how this is incorporated into the Procurement Bill”, but I cannot find it. So, my other question is: how will that Bill incorporate the provisions of, for example, Regulation 69 relating to abnormally low tenders into the structure of our regulation in future? I am happy to be guided by my noble friend on that, not least because it will no doubt give us an opportunity to learn a bit more about how the Procurement Bill itself will work in future. Subject to those questions, I am glad to take the opportunity to welcome the regulations and support my noble friend.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I, too, am pleased to speak to some of the issues before us this afternoon and thank and congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward the regulations. My noble friend Lord Lansley has eloquently addressed a number of issues on the relationship between this instrument and the public procurement Bill. But there is also the broader context of our new relationships with the EU and, now, with the three countries before us this afternoon. What is generally understood by “state aid” and has our policy towards them changed in that regard?

Perhaps the thing that concerns me most is this. My noble friend spoke about the GPA, the global procurement agreement to which we have signed up, and mentioned that it is worth £1.3 trillion to the UK economy. When the Trade Bill was passing through—I also took an interest in that at the time, and my noble friend Lord Grimstone spent hours trying to allay our concerns in this regard—it was curious that any public service was obliged to declare a contract worth, I think, €130,000 and to put it out for tender.

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, there are just two amendments in this group. They are both to the same purpose. As I explained previously, one relates to mandatory notifications, the other to voluntary notifications. My noble friend the Minister answered on Amendment 51 in his response to the previous group, but for my purposes it is linked to Amendment 50 in any case, so I will touch on it.

Amendments 50 and 63 essentially raise two questions. The first relates to circumstances where somebody gives a notice to the Secretary of State and they meet the requirements in the regulations—they have looked and said, “To give a notice to the Secretary of State, I have to tell the Secretary of State A, B, C, D”, or however many pieces of information. That should be specified in the regulations. As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State can then come back to them and say, “Yes, you provided all the information required under the regulations, but you didn’t provide us this further information, which would enable us to make a decision whether to accept or reject your notice.”

The purpose of these amendments is to say that we should not arrive at that situation. Somebody starting this process with a notice should be able to rely on the information specified in the regulations to accompany a notice being sufficient to start the process definitely, one way or the other. That is why Amendments 50 and 63 say what they do. As my noble friend Lord Callanan said in response to the previous group, the two initial points—does it meet the requirements of the section and the requirements prescribed in regulations?—should be enough, but the amendments would add, to make it absolutely clear,

“including as to the information required to be provided in relation to the notifiable acquisition”

or the trigger event in the case of a voluntary notification, so that there is no uncertainty about this. The regulations should say what information has to be provided. If it is provided, then the notice should be rejected or accepted.

The second question that arises from this is on voluntary notifications. Since it is not explained in the Bill, what happens if the Secretary of State receives a voluntary notification, decides that there is insufficient information, rejects it, sends a letter to the person who supplied the voluntary notification saying “You didn’t give me additional information X, Y or Z”, and the person concerned then decides not to bother? What would the Secretary of State do about this? It is not a notifiable acquisition. If it were the Secretary of State would have a degree of control, but on a voluntary notice there is no such control. I do not see what happens when a notice is rejected under those circumstances.

Perhaps when my noble friend replies on this short group he would also explain why notices should be rejected because people have not supplied the Secretary of State with information that he did not ask for, and what happens if somebody makes a voluntary notification, the Secretary of State rejects it and they then do nothing about it. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for tabling these two amendments. I would like to speak to Amendment 63, which gives me the opportunity to raise an issue raised with me, and I am sure with other noble Lords, by the Law Society of England. I put a direct question to the Minister in summing up this small group of amendments. Can he confirm that the Government have actually considered, and have regard to, the impact of the sheer large numbers of filings that they may receive on the new regime’s ability to dispense with these filings in a timely manner? My noble friend has done us a great service here by highlighting the level of information required in the first instance or that may be required at a later date.

The estimated volume of filings stated in the impact assessment, deemed to be between 1,000 and 1,830 transactions notified per year is, in the view of the Law Society, an underestimate. That is because, for reasons that my noble friend gave, there is likely to be a very large number of voluntary filings and requests for informal guidance, especially when the regime is new and businesses are accustoming themselves to its requirements. In my view, the Law Society has raised legitimate concerns, which are reflected in these two amendments. Can I have a reassurance that there will be sufficient resources to deal with the sheer number of requests that are expected to avoid delays and burdens for businesses, which could be avoided in this regard?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his Amendments 50 and 63. I shall deal first with a couple of points that have been made. If a voluntary notification is incomplete, it is not effective. That may mean that the Secretary of State may choose to exercise his call- in powers at some point in future in relation to that.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked whether we had underestimated the number of transactions that were likely to come before the unit. She referred to the work that the Law Society has done on that. All I can say is that we have thought about this carefully, and I am happy to repeat the assurance that we will make sure that the unit is fully resourced. If the number is greater than we anticipate, the resources of the unit will have to be expanded to cope with those greater numbers.

I extend my thanks again to my noble friend Lord Lansley for Amendments 50 and 63 which both relate to the information that must be provided as part of a notification. Clause 14 sets out the mandatory notification procedure and Clause 18 the voluntary notification procedure. Both clauses provide powers to the Secretary of State, by regulations, to prescribe the form and content of a mandatory notice and a voluntary notice respectively. Both clauses also provide that the Secretary of State may reject a notice where it does not meet the requirements of the clause, or the requirements prescribed by the regulations.

These amendments seek to make it clear that the Secretary of State can reject a mandatory or voluntary notice where information relating to either a notifiable acquisition or a trigger event has not been provided despite being specified as required in regulations. These amendments also seek, as a result, to ensure that any such regulations include a requirement to provide the information about the notifiable acquisition or trigger event needed to make a call-in decision.

I am happy that I can reassure my noble friend, I hope completely, that the Secretary of State absolutely intends to use the regulation-making powers under both these clauses to prescribe both the form and content of mandatory notices and voluntary notices. Indeed, our view is that the regime simply cannot work and will not work without such regulations being made. The primary entry mechanisms into the regime are based on notification, so it is vital that we are clear with businesses and investors about what information they must provide and in what format.

That is why, ahead of Committee in the other place, we published a draft of the information likely to be required as part of a mandatory notice or voluntary notice. I continue to welcome comments from noble Lords about that draft, but I think I can reassure my noble friend that information about notifiable acquisitions and trigger events will certainly form part of such requirements.

With that said, I fear that my noble friend’s amendments would therefore be duplicative in this instance. Clause 14(4) and Clause 18(4) allow the Secretary of State to make these regulations. Clause 14(6) and Clause 18(6) allow the Secretary of State to reject a notice where it does not meet the requirements specified in the regulations. The Government consider that this approach provides the powers that the Secretary of State needs to reject a notice where insufficient or the wrong information has been provided, whatever the final notification forms look like.

I hope my noble friend is reassured by my explanation of these clauses and the Government’s general approach on this matter, and I hope, therefore, that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 18th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say just a few words about this amendment. Although it is technical, the intention is to provide clarity to that part of Clause 8 which sets out the procedure whereby the Government propose to implement an international trade agreement which has an impact on standards in domestic legislation relating to, for example, social, environmental or animal welfare standards. I completely understand that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in tabling this amendment is to make it clear that the legislation relating to standards should complete its parliamentary processes, as the clause says, prior to the trade agreement being laid.

I am not really speaking about that aspect of it. Indeed, I draw attention to the fact that, notwithstanding Clause 8, Clause 7 has what I would regard—not least because I moved the relevant amendment at Report—as a better formulation, which requires the subordinate legislation, secondary instruments, to have been laid before the ratification of the trade agreement and for the primary legislation required for its implementation to have been passed before ratification. However, Clause 8, as clarified by this amendment, has the effect of meaning that the parliamentary procedure in relation to domestic legislation has to be completed before those texts are laid before Parliament. I think that is unnecessary and rather burdensome, and it would be better to rest on the text in Clause 7, which requires the legislation to have been passed prior to ratification.

The point I want to make is actually about impact assessments. If, in response to this short debate, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—who I see is, happily, now in his place—can explain why impact assessments should not be laid before Parliament prior to the completion of parliamentary processes relating to the implementation of domestic legislation, I would welcome that. That seems unnecessary—indeed, undesirable. It would be better were impact assessments formulated and laid before Parliament relating to domestic legislation which implements any change in standards in this country consequent to an agreement in an international trade context. For them not to be required by legislation to be laid before Parliament until the text of the trade agreement itself is laid seems unnecessary and undesirable.

I do not oppose the amendment, as it has the effect of making clear that subsection. However, what the subsection suggests, particularly for impact assessments, is undesirable. As it happens, as we dispatch the Bill to the other place, this clause rather duplicates what is set out in Clause 7. It would be better to retain Clause 7, rather than the formulation in this part of Clause 8.

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

My Lords, I welcome Amendment 1, as it brings greater clarity, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—who I am delighted to see in his place—for bringing it forward.

I take this opportunity to put a question to my noble friend the Minister, and to thank him for the openness he has shown throughout proceedings on the Bill. Does he have a timeframe in mind as to when the code of practice, as envisaged under Clause 8, is to be brought forward? I imagine that is also subject to Amendment 1 before us this afternoon. Will the code of practice envisaged be general, or does he envisage that a separate code of practice for each future international trade agreement may need to come before the House?

As my noble friend is aware, I care passionately about maintaining the standards in paragraphs (a) to (f): in particular, food, animal welfare and the environment. Does he share my concern at the noises off, which are saying that, now we have left the European Union, we do not have to maintain those high standards? Can he, from the Government’s perspective, quash any such move, paying tribute to British farmers and to the high standards to which they produce our food, to which consumers have become accustomed and wish to continue to purchase? With that, I give Amendment 1 a warm welcome.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 14th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who has made some very cogent points, both in that speech and when we discussed these clauses in Grand Committee.

I want to make two points. The first is about the structure of Amendment 18. I am not entirely sure that I understand why pharmacovigilance has been singled out in the amendment as a reason why disclosure should be made, as distinct from, for example, public health co-operation or the pursuit of research. Indeed, the Minister referred to the sharing of information in relation to international clinical trials as a very good example. If one were to legislate in this form, it would be inevitable that the reference to pharmacovigilance would be regarded as having additional weight, and the absence of reference to other purposes for which information would be shared would be regarded as less important. I am not sure that that would be at all helpful to have in statute.

My other point is in relation to Clause 7(5). Government Amendment 22 refers to and introduces a provision that assists in understanding the relationship between this legislation and other enactments concerning the disclosure of information. Clause 7(5) states:

“Nothing in this section authorises a disclosure of information which … contravenes the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, take into account the powers conferred by this section)”.


Noble Lords may recall the Trade Bill and, in particular, the debate we had on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act just before Christmas and new year. We passed legislation the purpose of which was, among other things, to ensure that we clarified the relationship between that enactment and others that authorise disclosures of information or, in some circumstances, prohibit such disclosures. The particular basis for the structure of that Bill was to clarify a situation where there is a statutory gateway and other enactments that put constraints on the disclosure of information.

In subsection (5) it is clear that if someone is considering a disclosure that might contravene the data protection legislation, that legislation must be considered alongside the powers in this legislation. That enables them to satisfy the test in the Christian Institute and others v The Lord Advocate 2016 Supreme Court decision, as referred to in my noble friend Lord Grimstone’s letter to us about the Trade Bill. In the Trade Bill, though, as is the case in this Bill, we have reference both to the data protection legislation and to the Investigatory Powers Act. In the Trade Bill, amendments were introduced on Report to ensure that the saving reference—that is, when determining whether a disclosure would contravene the legislation, it takes into account the powers in this section—was applied to both the data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act. However, in this legislation—Clause 7(5)(b) —the saving reference is applied to the data protection legislation but not to the Investigatory Powers Act.

My question, which I am sorry I have not had an opportunity to give the Minister notice of, as I have started working through these issues only very recently, is this. Having dealt with this matter on the Trade Bill, I would have thought that both these subsections should have the saving reference that allows the question of the contravention of those Acts to be considered, including reference to the powers in this Bill. I wonder if he would agree.

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

My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend, who speaks with such great authority both as a former Secretary of State for Health and as someone who has followed the Trade Bill and the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act so closely.

At the risk of dancing on the head of a pin, the amendments in this group are quite close, and the Minister set out every reason why we should support his Amendment 17. He said that information would be shared only in the circumstances where there is perceived to be a public need. The amendments and explanatory statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, refine that by saying that, in the context of giving effect to an international agreement or arrangement concerning the regulation of human medicines, it should be disclosed only provided that it is in the public interest to do so. A number of noble Lords have spoken with great eloquence and passion on these issues, including the noble Lords, Lord Patel, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Freyberg, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. I have to say that I personally would draw the line at disclosing information for a commercial need as opposed to a public one.

I have a particular question about Amendment 19, which clearly states that patient information cannot be disclosed where the patient could be identified and that that information cannot be given without their consent. I remember that I was once asked to participate in a study; I signed the form and was delighted to do so, and never heard any more about it. I would just like to know how Amendment 19 would work in practice. At what point, and by whom, would the patient be contacted if that information was about to be disclosed and their consent sought?

I have reservations about this group. I remember the important debate that we had on the Trade Bill in this regard, and I am delighted to see that those issues are being considered in the context of this Bill as well. I have two concerns that I hope can be allayed. The first is that public need should not be deemed to collude with commercial need where it might not be in the interests of the patient. The second is about informed consent: how will the patient be consulted within the provisions of Amendment 19?

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 12th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who again has raised an important issue. The amendment in this group which more broadly encompass all those elements that go to make the United Kingdom a favourable location for research and the manufacture and supply of medicines gives us an opportunity to make sure that we have got that right.

I support the government amendments in this group and add my thanks to those expressed to the Minister and the Bill team for the immensely constructive way in which they responded to the amendments that we brought forward in Committee and in many related discussions. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and I were worried that the Bill was skeletal. We wanted to put a bit of flesh on its bones and make it more of a framework Bill—I think that is a bit of a theme. In the spirit of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, it might be helpful if I briefly explained what we were trying to achieve, and how these government amendments appear to have responded well to that.

First, even following the initial changes, the structure of the powers was not objective; they were that the relevant Minister was satisfied that the regulations met certain requirements. What we were looking for from the outset was an objective test. My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy asked what that objective test was and why we chose to continue with the structure of safeguarding public health? The short answer is that it is because that is the objective in the European Union regulation; it is not an objective in that context which relates to the internal market provisions. To have moved away from the objective of safeguarding public health would run the risk of it being interpreted as somehow different from the past objective on the basis of which decisions had been made and regulations pursued. That seemed entirely appropriate as an encompassing and overarching objective for all these related requirements. I am happy that the Government’s amendment has taken that forward as an objective measure against which the regulations, the use of these powers, can be tested.

Secondly, we wanted to make sure that safety was built into the structure of regulation-making powers. We had an extremely helpful debate about that, and I think that it was clear that, while we wanted to make safety central to what was being achieved, it would not be appropriate to make it an overriding objective. That would have led to the regulator being required effectively to eliminate risk. That brings me to the point made by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. We then came to the further question of how, if safety is the issue, we then manage the test of whether benefits outweigh risks, sufficiently so for regulations to be proceeded with. The answer is that the objective is not to eliminate risk; it is to eliminate harm. We must make a distinction between those two things.

Making safety the overriding objective would have meant us having to eliminate risk. At the moment, we balance benefits and risks, not benefits and harms. When my noble friend Lady Cumberlege asked her question, I think she was suggesting that we were having to balance benefits and harms, whereas on pretty much every occasion the regulator is asked to undertake an authorisation they have to balance benefits and risks, because we can never eliminate risk. The question is: can we quantify it? That is what the trials and the data are meant to enable us to do—to quantify the benefits and risks. In making an authorisation, can we make sure that we have avoided harm but at the same time realised those benefits?

These amendments get us to that balance. They enable us to give an objective test against which the powers can be measured; they enable us to put safety clearly at the heart of the thinking about how the powers are to be used, and they enable the regulator to undertake that appropriate measurement of benefits and risks. I support the amendments and appreciate the way in which we have arrived at this place by constructive discussion.

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

My Lords, I welcome Amendment 5 and others in this group. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in complimenting both the Minister and the Bill team on their expert handling of this part of the Bill.

I find the sentiment behind Amendment 12 attractive and endorse entirely the words of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and others who have supported her in wanting to avoid “harm”. The idea of a threshold, as solicited in Amendment 12, seems helpful. I have a question for my noble friend the Minister to which I would be grateful for a response. We are told in the explanatory statement that the amendment would require the Secretary of State

“to publish the criteria that will be used by the appropriate authority”—

obviously not yet set up—

“to determine whether the benefits of regulations that may impact on the safety of human medicines outweigh the risk”

and

“to allow for greater transparency and scrutiny.”

My noble friend said that the Government intended to publish the initial assessments. It would be helpful to know when that would be.

There currently seems to be a gap in the law; for example, as regards the vaccinations—I know that this was debated earlier today. The Government have unilaterally extended the time between the first dose and the second dose of Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines from three weeks—21 days—to up to 12 weeks. No other European country that I am aware of has done this. It is true that Denmark is looking to extend it to a maximum of between four and six weeks, which is nearer the initial three-week period. I presume that, if what is proposed by Amendment 12 were law, the Government would be obliged to publish the arguments in the interests of transparency, openness and scrutiny as to how they had reached that decision. If that were the case, I would be minded to support Amendment 12.

Otherwise, I welcome Amendments 4 and 5 and others in the group, which look to establish the overarching objective as being public health. I like the formulation of words that the Government have hit on and hope that they will stick with it. I shall be interested to hear how my noble friend responds, but, as I see it, there is some merit in Amendment 12.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I shall speak to Amendments 28, 29 and 30, which are intended as probing amendments. I refer in passing to the report on the Trade Bill from the Select Committee on the Constitution, published in September of last year. The committee says at paragraph 11:

“We remain of the view that the Bill’s skeletal approach to empowering the Trade Remedies Authority is inappropriate.”


It goes on to say at paragraph 12:

“We recognise that there continue to be significant uncertainties regarding the UK’s trading relationships at the end of the Brexit transition period”,


which of course has now passed, and it concludes:

“However, it is not clear why, more than two years after the previous version of the Bill was introduced, the functions and powers of the Trade Remedies Authority cannot be set out in more detail in this Bill.”


Therefore, I gently nudge my noble friend the Minister to say, when he responds to Amendments 28, 29 and 30, what the intention behind the original Clause 6 was.

With Amendments 28 and 29, I seek in particular to focus on understanding better what limits might be appropriate to a request to the Trade Remedies Authority to provide advice on matters of international trade, and, with Amendment 30, to clarify the purpose of the initial consultation before proceeding to a request. At this stage, I should say that I am most grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for its assistance in briefing me and preparing these amendments.

With regard to Amendment 30, it is not immediately clear from the legislation why the Secretary of State would consult the Trade Remedies Authority under Clause 6(3) and how this is different from issuing the original request under subsection (1). I might be missing something but, if you are issuing a request, that seems a little odd. I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for raising this with me and, in turn, for the House this afternoon. Surely, if you make a request to the Trade Remedies Authority, you do not need to consult the authority beforehand on the nature of that request.

Can my noble friend clarify whether there is any distinction between the two actions, making it clear that the duty to consult in Clause 6(3) relates to framing or scoping a request to the Trade Remedies Authority, just so we can understand why it is appropriate to shape that request when, in fact, the Trade Remedies Authority is meant to be independent and impartial? By going through this process of consultation, I am slightly concerned that that impartiality and independence may be impugned or compromised.

Amendments 28 and 29 point to the fact that the Trade Remedies Authority has already existed, and exists in abstract, having been incorporated by reference in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, although we are formally constituting it in the Trade Bill before us today. If it is the case that the Trade Remedies Authority is responsible for carrying out investigations and advising on remedies as set up under the cross-border trade Act, while it is an essential aspect of international trade, it is only one part of that. The proposed amendment therefore would ensure that requests for advice are limited to matters on which the Trade Remedies Authority is competent to advise, having regard to its remit and functions.

The purpose of this group of three amendments is simply to explore a better understanding from my noble friend and the Government through the department as to what the remit of the TRA should be and to ensure that the independence and impartiality of that body will not be infringed through the present drafting of Clause 6(3).

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The amendments in this group all relate to the composition, functions and approach taken by the Trade Remedies Authority. I am very glad to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She rightly referred to the powers and approach set out in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. I have to say equally gently that that is the answer to the points made by the Constitution Committee of this House—that they do not need to be set out in this legislation, because, way back when we first started considering the previous Trade Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and I fondly remember, it was introduced at almost exactly the same time as the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill. They were intended to proceed in parallel and are now entirely separate.

To some extent, that also gives a further reason why we should briefly consider at this stage the Trade Remedies Authority’s understanding that it has, in the form of the trade remedies investigation directorate of the Department for International Trade, been up and running, working on the transition review from the European Union and making recommendations relating to the imposition of countervailing, anti-dumping or safeguarding duties inherited from the European Commission. To that extent, we seek to influence not something new but something that has an ongoing role.

In this debate, I want to raise several issues. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not regard it as necessary to elaborate on all these issues now. If he wishes to write later, that is absolutely fine, but I do want to make one or two points.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords & Ping Pong (Minutes of Proceedings): House of Lords
Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute briefly on this group of amendments. I wish to speak to nothing other than Commons Amendment 3, relating to the deletion of Clause 18, which deals with the national landing requirement. I support the Government going down this path of accepting that we do not want to impose the rigidities of that formulation, and I entirely agree with what my noble friend the Minister said in introducing his amendments and speaking to that particular one.

As was said by my noble friend, and by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, this is about achieving economic benefits through economic linkage. The Government are pursuing this through their consultation. We must understand that the most important economic benefits will be derived from the new relationship we establish with the European Union and our role as an independent coastal state. We must make this happen.

I remind noble Lords—I know those present will know only too well—that we import two-thirds of the fish that we eat and we export two-thirds of the fish that we catch. The market and trading relationship that we have with our neighbours is as important as the relationship that we have around the allocation of fishing opportunities. It is said that a deal can be done: both sides are saying a deal can be done but both sides continue to say that such a deal has not yet been done in relation to fisheries. That is a sad fact, because it should be the case that a deal should be available. Some considerable time ago, the European Union accepted the proposition that there would be a move to zonal attachment rather than relative stability. It cannot deny the simple legal fact that we have now, and will have in future, sovereign control over our waters, but I think we all accept that there is a need to co-operate.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson—he understands this far better than I do—made the point that what we require for our UK fishing fleet is, in the years ahead, a reversal of the experience they have had in the last decades. Instead of the progressive reduction of capacity of the UK fishing fleet—which I think is something around 30% down over 20 years, and halved over the last 40 years—we want in the decade ahead to see the capacity of the UK fishing fleet increase, year on year. It is not simply about the allocation of additional quota, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, that could end up quota that is sold back to foreign boats.

What we want to see therefore—and what is, I think, the basis of a deal—is an acceptance on the part of the EU that there is a progressive increase in UK quota that is then made as additional quota available to UK boats at a pace realistic to their ability to increase capacity. They have been losing capacity, on average, at 2% a year, and we could maybe be more ambitious in recovering it—at perhaps 5% a year, and a 50% increase in capacity over 10 years.

It may be that this is not achievable in a straightforward deal with our European partners. But in the broader context of the relationship with the EU, such a shift and reduction in the available quota to our neighbours in the European Union is entirely negotiable, with compensation for those who lose access to quota in some of these other countries. That may be something we have to accept in the context of the deal.

However, it seems to me that one of the ideological barriers to understanding the nature of the deal that has to be struck is the proposition, constantly made by the Government, that there is no relationship between market access and quota. That is clearly not true. It was not true for the Norwegians: the European Economic Area discussions that Norway had with the European Union were about financial contributions, fishing opportunities and market access. Our deal with the European Union must include all those three aspects too. When we accept that, and the fact that we are substantial importers and consumers of fish caught by our neighbours, just as they buy from us, we then begin to realise that there must be a deal and how it might be achievable. We will then get the economic benefits through the expansion of our fishing fleet over a period of time at a sustainable rate, which, I believe, should be accepted, even by the most fervent advocates of the Brexit process—which I am not. But even those who are must accept that simply, for example, giving all the quota back to the English fishing fleet tomorrow will not suddenly create a large capacity that does not presently exist.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I shall speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I would like to say what a privilege it is to serve under his chairmanship on the EU Environment Sub-Committee.

I have spoken at every stage of this Bill about the benefits of remote electronic monitoring, and I very much support the conclusions that we reached in the other place when I was chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee. As the number one admirer of my noble friend the Minister, I believe that this amendment should be extremely helpful to him. I would like to quote what my noble friend the Duke of Montrose would have said had he been here. He feels that at the moment we are missing answers to the main questions about reasonably accurate records of stocks, and I think that this amendment serves to plug that gap. In my noble friend’s words, it

“might remove some of the resistance in the under 10m fleet”,

because we are exposing that. The amendment addresses what is missing at the moment, which is the scientific data that we need. I welcome the fact that under-10-metre vessels will be excluded and that that exclusion will apply to both UK vessels and other vessels fishing in our waters.

I want to impress on the Minister a sense of urgency in this matter. I welcome the fact that he has made a call for evidence and that we are to have a consultation in the first half of next year, but there will then be a further delay before the regulations are drafted and come into effect, and that is the missing link. Therefore, I urge the Minister to show a sense of urgency in this regard.

In regard to the quotas for under-10-metre fishing vessels, when I was MEP for Essex North and Suffolk South, the whole of the Essex coast was in my constituency. This issue is of immense concern to fishermen there and to fishermen in Filey and other parts of Yorkshire. I am sure that my noble friend will confirm that we do not need to have left the EU fisheries policy to achieve this, so, again, I hope that we can proceed rapidly to the donations and to allowing unused quotas to be used by the under-10s.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, always speaks with authority. If the Minister is not able to accept his amendment, I hope that he will say what vehicle he will use in this House to inform us how the three legs of the sustainability objective will be retained.

Finally, expressions such as “long term” and “shortly” always amuse me. Now, we learn from the Minister that we will hear before the summer about the regulations to bring part of these provisions into effect. Can my noble friend point to the specific part that “in the long term” will apply to? Is it the habitats directive? Which legal provision would prevent any possible future development of ports if the words “in the long term” were removed from Amendment 1? What specific legal provision can he refer to in that regard? I am struggling to understand, unless there is a specific provision in the habitats directive or other parts of what are now EU retained law in UK law.

With that, the one amendment that I would support, if he were to put it to a vote, is Amendment 14B, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Thursday 15th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I fell foul of the procedures myself today—I think I am still a new girl, navigating my way through these extraordinary times, but I pay tribute to the facilities we have and we are grateful to have the hybrid system that is working so well.

I shall speak to Amendments 81 and 83 and later amendments. For the record, I perhaps misled my noble friend the Minister in my question at Question Time, but I have the highest possible regard for members of the Trade and Agriculture Commission—they have proven their independence and their value to date. My noble friend said that they take no money for their role, so we are particularly grateful for their public service contribution. My noble friend will be under no illusion, however: I would like the commission to be independent and to have its own resources, its own staff and its own offices, and I shall continue my little campaign in that regard.

On appointments made under Amendment 81, can my noble friend put my mind at rest? What does the Governance Code for Public Appointments say about non-disclosure agreements? I am sure they do not sit comfortably within the present arrangements.

On Amendment 83 and the trade advisory groups, I noticed in the previous group that we had 17 expert trade advisory groups in July with, I think, 250 representatives. In August, we had fewer representatives and only 11 trade advisory groups. I would like to clarify, if I may, what the current composition is. Do they include, for example, anybody—a British national, ideally—who has first-hand experience of negotiating trade through the EU Commission, which would obviously be hugely beneficial at this time, as we set out negotiations on our own? To what extent is industry involved, either through the CBI or otherwise? I understand that the CBI was represented in the earlier trade advisory groups and it is extremely important, if the CBI is not represented, that we have some kind of business representation.

Can my noble friend also put my mind rest that services, both professional—such as legal services—and financial, have bodies that are represented through the trade advisory groups? If that is the case, could he please explain which they are?

I was delighted to sign Amendments 106, 107 and 108. I support the sentiments behind them and I consider them, at this stage, probing amendments, but it is extremely important that the Trade Remedies Authority also represents those categories. In Amendment 106, under proposed new sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) I would add (e) and (f) to include representatives of business, professional and financial services as well, because services are so important to our future trading potential.

On Amendment 108, I repeat my earlier remarks and endorse the provision that a person should hold office

“for a fixed period of five years”,

which would, I think, increase the potential for independence. A fixed term would give Trade Remedies Authority members greater security of tenure and therefore reinforce their independence and impartiality. A commitment was given by my right honourable friend the Minister, Greg Hands, in Committee in the House of Commons, that people are appointed on merit following fair and open competition, in keeping with the Governance Code on Public Appointments. The code itself states that there is a strong presumption that no individual should serve more than two terms or serve in any post for more than 10 years, other than in exceptional circumstances. I therefore hope that my noble friend will see fit to put this in the Bill through this amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend. My amendment in this group is Amendment 113, which I shall come to at the end, where it is listed. However, there are two other areas that I shall briefly touch on.

First, Amendment 81, and those linked to it, cover appointments to the Board of Trade, or indeed to the trade advisory groups. I have a disinclination, I have to say, for statute or, indeed, the Select Committees of either House to be reaching into government departments and telling Secretaries of State who they should have to advise them. Amendment 81 probably misses the point, in that there are, as I understand it, very few appointments to the Board of Trade as such; most of the appointments being discussed are appointments of advisers to the board rather than members of the board itself. However, that is neither here nor there from my point of view. If Ministers are able to give the Committee assurances about the balance they will bring, I would be perfectly happy that they are getting balanced advice—that is terribly important.

Secondly, on Amendment 107, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh are venturing back into the territory I ventured into on Tuesday. I said that there should be a pre-appointment hearing of the International Trade Select Committee of the other place for the appointment of the chair. I await a letter from my noble friend the Minister explaining why I am wrong. I may well be wrong, but the point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: we are dealing here not with the appointment of those who advise the Secretary of State in his own department but an independent body. That independent body is accountable to Parliament, and Parliament should have a say, although not a determining say, in who is appointed to chair it.

I am not proposing, as Amendment 107 does, that these appointments of non-executive members of the Trade Remedies Authority should be subject to consent—that goes further than I would—but the appointment of the TRA chair is important. It has impact and, if not wide public importance, very wide business importance. It is something that should be clearly commented on by Parliament. That does not mean that Ministers cannot go ahead and appoint whom they wish. Indeed, even where there is a pre-appointment confirmatory hearing in other cases, Ministers, when I last looked, on nine occasions made recommendations to which Select Committees objected, and on six of those occasions, Ministers went ahead anyway. It would not prevent Ministers doing what they want to do, but it would give them Parliament’s view, so I am rather sympathetic to that amendment.

Amendment 113 is not about appointments or the membership of the TRA; it refers to Clause 6, which gives the Trade Remedies Authority the power—indeed, the obligation—to give advice to the Secretary of State in a number of respects, and the Secretary of State can request such advice. The Trade Remedies Authority is an independent body; there is a statutory relationship with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State may ask for advice. For example, and I make no apology for coming back to this, let us say that we are talking about the Airbus and Boeing dispute, and the Secretary of State has asked the Trade Remedies Authority for advice on the “trade remedy measures” adopted by the United States in relation to that dispute, as both sides have secured World Trade Organization consent to the imposition of additional duties. When the Secretary of State asks for that, it is something on which the Trade Remedies Authority should expose for accountability purposes that it has given advice when it comes to the annual report.

It is important, and the fact that its advice has been sought is also important. I do not expect the annual report to go into obsessive or spurious detail, but, when one makes an annual report for an independent body accountable to Parliament, it should tell us how and when this statutory provision has been deployed during the year.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to Amendments 70 and 95. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, had very much hoped to speak this evening, as he has very kindly co-signed the amendments, for which I thank him. One of the idiosyncrasies of our procedures meant that he was not able to get on to the right Marshalled List. I know that he will be following proceedings very closely and I thank him warmly for his support. I look forward to hearing my noble friend Lord Lansley speak to his amendment on free zones. Free ports are something that I support, and anything that we can do to increase people’s understanding of free ports and the fact that we could join and create as many free ports as we liked while we were members of the European Union is all to the good.

The purposes of Amendments 70 and 95 are straight- forward. They look to introduce a short period of adjustment following the end of the formal transition period at the end of this year, particularly in relation to any free trade agreements with the EU, but also with our economic partnership agreements and rollover agreements under the Bill. This would allow industries in the farming sector to make business-critical changes following the outcome of these negotiations. Also, for business viability, it refers to the introduction of measures to facilitate trade with our partners, both in the EU in a future trading agreement and our current economic partners, with the EEA, EFTA and others, in the rollover and continuity categories of agreements. Also, again, it looks to the minimisation of compliance costs for the farming sector, including minimising veterinary checks and physical inspections on large volumes of food products moving between the UK and our partners, particularly the EU.

I know that many of these issues were touched on in the earlier amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, so I take this opportunity to stress that we are dealing here with perishable goods, particularly fresh meat and produce. This is a particular source of concern to the British poultry business, which hopes that we will continue to have tariff-free access to the EU market to ensure quality, affordable British food. We should realise how important poultry is as an industry: more than half the meat we eat in the UK is poultry and 1 billion birds are reared for meat every year. The UK is the fourth largest producer of poultry meat in the EU and is about 60% self-sufficient.

We are very heavily dependent on trade. It is generally understood that, for trading purposes, your closest market is your best market, because obviously the cost of transport will be lower, and with this being fresh produce and, as I said, perishable, it is extremely important that we remove as many barriers as possible.

These are intended to be probing amendments, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, when he comes to sum up, will be able to put my mind at rest that it will be part of an objective in negotiating trade and continuity agreements as well as any eventual agreement with the EU to secure such an implementation period, allowing industries with just-in-time supply chains, including the farming sector, to make these business-critical changes.

I am acutely aware of the impact of this particularly on the Northern Irish border with the Republic of Ireland, so any light that my noble friend can shed on this would be extremely helpful. Equally, when I ask, in Amendment 95, to look at

“the minimisation of veterinary checks and physical inspections on large volumes of food products”,

I am aware of the shortage of veterinary scientists in this country. Has my noble friend and his department addressed this in this regard?

I therefore seek to achieve a commitment that the trade will be as frictionless and seamless as possible, as we were promised when we decided to leave the European Union. This will continue to be the case with the EEA, EFTA and the EU. With those few remarks, I beg to move Amendment 70.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity, in this group, to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh. She will forgive me if I do not speak to her two amendments but instead confine myself to Amendment 93 in my name, which relates to free zones and free ports. These are essentially the same thing; they are called free zones in the legislation that establishes the procedure for making them.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the debate on 4 February 2019 on the previous Bill that was brought forward. I had a debate whose purpose was to propose a consultation on the future designation of free zones; of course, there were and are no free zones. The Minister at the time, my noble friend Lord Bates, replied to me on that subject then. I was asking for a consultation, and he said that he was not able to offer one but that

“The idea has been advocated”—[Official Report, 4/2/19; col. 1349.]


by himself and a number of others in the north-east, including the local MP Rishi Sunak. I see that time has moved on.

I am raising the same subject but do not need to ask for a consultation on the part of the Government, because they have now had one and are readying themselves, I hope, to respond to the product of that consultation. Back in February 2019, my noble friend said at the end:

“I am not able to be more helpful than that to my noble friend at this point, much as I may wish to be”.—[Official Report, 4/2/19; col. 1349.]


So I am looking to my noble friend on the Front Bench again today to be as helpful as he wishes to be.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 22nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]]

My Lords, I too support the amendments and thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for bringing them before the House. The amendments reflect the sad fact that farming and fishing are two of our most dangerous industries, with perhaps a higher number of casualties and fatalities than any other. However, is it the Minister’s position that the sentiments behind Amendments 5 and 6 fall better within normal health and safety legislation and wider maritime law, which would be the usual place for such amendments to be found? Having said that, I welcome this opportunity to consider the great service that our fishermen do in battling the elements and bringing their excellent produce to our tables.

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, I join my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and other noble Lords in paying tribute to the courage, fortitude and skill of those who work in our fishing fleets. In that sense, I think that we are all very much behind the spirit of the two amendments.

I hope that it will be unnecessary to insert an additional clause on sustaining the workforce, because it is implied by the fisheries objectives as they exist, but I hope that the Minister might also tell us more about the ways in which the Government are proposing to assist Seafish, the NDPB which under the Fisheries Act 1981 has responsibility to provide support to the workforce of the sea fish industry and, under regulations introduced in 1982, the ability to place a levy on the first sale of sea foods in this country. Its corporate plan is due to be renewed. It would be helpful, if not this evening then perhaps subsequently in a letter placed in the Library of the House, if the Minister were able to say something about how the Government hope to support Seafish in its endeavours. Its last corporate plan had as one of its five challenges to support a safe and skilled workforce. The issues that we are talking about, of recruitment to the industry, of training for those in it and the achievement of an as-safe-as-possible working environment for them, are things that Seafish is endeavouring to address, and we want to see it supported.