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

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot claim any expertise in trademarks or their registration, but I think there is force in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. The expression “established by use” is slightly vague, whereas the words that the noble Lord would substitute—of it being actively “in use prior to that date”—make the point rather better. I support the amendment, for what it is worth, in the interests of clarity.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right: the Trade Marks Act 1994 at no point uses the words “established by use”. However, the Act makes specific provision for registered trademarks, whereas those established by use—as the noble Lord said—would presumably be unregistered and, therefore, subject to common law through the concept of passing off. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments on passing off and whether that covers it.

I want to pick up the main point of this amendment and, specifically, geographical indications. I think this may be the only time on Report that we will be able to get some words into Hansard on that. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, picked up the technical part, but there is a wider set of issues on geographical indications on which I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.

When this agreement was announced in October 2020, the then Trade Secretary Liz Truss MP promised that 77 specialist UK food and drink products would be guaranteed protected geographical indication status, along with the seven that were carried over from the previous EU-Japan trade deal. The former DIT Minister said that the protections would be in place by May 2021 for all 77 new products, which included many iconic British brands, such as Scottish beef, Cornish pasties and Welsh lamb—to name but a few. The DIT also boasted that, thanks to Liz Truss’s agreement, the UK would benefit from fast-track processes for securing brand protection that would not have been possible under the EU-Japan deal. It said:

“The EU must negotiate each new GI individually on a case-by-case basis”.


The EU has added 84 extra products to its protected list since October 2020, including a number in the last few months, but I understand that Kemi Badenoch’s department has not yet secured brand protection for a single one of the 77 products originally promised. The number of EU GIs with Japan now stands at 299, which offers them protection, while the UK is still stuck with only the seven protected products inherited from the EU-Japan deal. Given this, how can UK producers of geographically indicated products be confident in the measures contained within the CPTPP?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Perhaps I might add something before the Minister speaks. Having listened with interest to my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, and with my limited intellectual property knowledge, I am concerned about the use of the words “established by use”. As far as I know, they do not appear elsewhere and are certainly not part of existing legislation. To bring them into this legislation, almost by a side wind, would be somewhat unfortunate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 12 tabled by my noble friend Lady Willis. I also very much support Amendment 10 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and support her comments this evening.

As I mentioned during earlier stages of the Bill, I have been extremely concerned about the potential impact on domestic food production of the various trade deals that the Government have negotiated. Of course, it is vital that we negotiate trade deals that encourage reciprocal trade and benefit the economies of those involved. We absolutely need to do that. We in agriculture need access to global markets to have the opportunity to expand the range of excellent food products produced here in the UK. I fully respect the fact that other partners to this agreement expect access to our markets.

We are not afraid of competition. We have some of the most efficient farmers in the world, but competition must be fair. I am reassured by the Minister, in his opening statement this afternoon, that domestic standards will not change and will not be weakened. I thank him for that confirmation. However, that is not my primary concern. For those not close to the world of farming, let me explain what is currently taking place.

Farmers are about half way through a seven-year transitional period which involves the most radical shake-up of agricultural policy in over 70 years. All direct support is being removed, so that within about three years there will be no direct subsidies. Farmers will have to survive unsubsidised in the marketplace. Any future support will change to incentivise farmers to deliver public goods, mainly environmental outcomes, which is very appropriate in the light of climate change, loss of habits, et cetera. However, for farmers to survive and trade successfully in a very competitive global market, it is essential that competing businesses are able to operate under the same trading rules.

As has been stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and my noble friend Lady Boycott, within this CPTPP agreement are countries where over 100 chemicals are used that are banned here in the UK. Not only does this represent a serious commercial disadvantage for UK farmers: we have to believe that they are banned for good reason. They were harmful either to ecosystems, or to people. I am sure that exporting partner countries will give us assurances that food commodities and products sent to the UK will conform to our high standards. However, it will be impossible to audit the myriad production systems to verify that this is the case. Therefore, this amendment is necessary to protect ourselves from potentially harmful chemicals and our farmers from unfair competition. It is important not only that our standards are not diluted but that we set international standards that are applied within this important trading partnership. We have an opportunity here to demonstrate global leadership, and we should seize it. The same principle applies to animal welfare standards and to our commitment to deliver higher environmental standards. I hope that the Minister will accept the principles behind these amendments.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, this group is the meat of Report. We have eight amendments in this group, and many have been ably introduced and explained. We have had detailed debates on all these issues in Committee, so there is no need to rehash all the arguments. I have tabled two amendments in this group and added my name to two others. I thank the Minister and his officials for making themselves available for discussions both before Committee and before Report. I will concentrate on the four amendments to which I have put my name. To be clear, like others, I am seeking commitments from the Minister on the quality, detail and depth of the impact assessment that the Government have committed to. We will listen to his response. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, said he was seeking meaningful reassurances.

Impact assessments are a good thing. Understanding the effects of any new settlement, both the positive and the negative, is a sensible way of learning the lessons, especially as CPTPP, although small in the scale of trade, is varied in terms of the countries involved. Impact assessments on ISDS, animal welfare, pesticides, commodities, workers’ rights, forestry and public services are therefore vital tools in understanding the successes and failures, the winners and losers, of this deal. If the Minister truly believes in the CPTPP and is confident that its impact will be wholly positive, surely he will have no problem with this undertaking.

I turn to the amendments. Amendment 13 deals with labour standards. The basis for this amendment is very straightforward. Unions both here and abroad have deep concerns about the inadequacies of the labour chapters and the fact that the agreement would consider an infringement of labour rights actionable only if it is proved to have a deleterious effect on trade. The fact that many of the countries we would be joining do not comply with even the most basic ILO standards compounds this structural problem. Indeed, with regard to the eight ILO conventions, Brunei has ratified only two and Malaysia and Singapore only five each. Five of the 11 CPTPP nations have not ratified the convention on the freedom of association. In Mexico, for example, companies regularly engage in union busting and in Vietnam, union leadership is often controlled by senior management. It is important to note that no CPTPP Government have ever challenged another over labour rights violations. We are concerned that not only does lowering the barriers to trade with these countries encourage the continued abuse of workers globally but it could undermine the protections we have here for the sake of competitiveness.

The other reason for this amendment is so that we can assess the potential negative effects on UK businesses. We have heard this from a number of noble Lords. None of us wants to see the undercutting of UK manufacturers and producers by forced labour or breaches of labour standards. We are all aware of the US pausing imports of goods where forced labour was used.

Amendment 14 deals with the impact of the procurement chapter on UK public services. Many have raised the issue that the negative list approach to service listing in the CPTPP could expose the NHS to further privatisation. The ratchet clause as well as the ISDS provisions could preclude the Government taking services back under public control if it affected a private business’s profits. The Government have argued that the NHS will never be on the table, but it is hard to see how that can be true if they have made no effort to take it off the table. This amendment calls for an impact assessment to monitor progress in this area.

Amendment 9 deals with the ISDS—investor-state dispute settlement—provisions in the agreement. My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton explained this in detail. Many other noble Lords have rightly highlighted this issue in particular. Given that the Government, by implication, agree that the ISDS provisions are outdated and dangerous by signing side-letters with Australia and New Zealand to preclude their use, it seems strange that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade would reject calls to do a similar deal with Canada, a particularly litigious member of the CPTPP, as many US businesses can testify.

It is vital, therefore, that we monitor the effect that ISDS has on our standards, and that is why an impact assessment is so important. My noble friend Lord Davies called for a close review, and he is correct. He also noted the chilling effects on government decision-making, which relates to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about Governments making decisions because they are concerned about their sovereign policy-making being affected by other businesses.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, in preparing for today, I had a look back over previous Statements, debates and Written and Oral Questions that we have debated in your Lordships’ House. What shocked me the most was just how repetitive it all is: the same interventions, the same problems, the same people and the same lack of solutions. I have raised questions and spoken in debates on this issue many times since 2019, and I am just a newcomer. We have all known about the scandal for years, thanks to some great campaigning by individual sub-postmasters and by parliamentarians across the political divide and across both Houses. They include the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and Kevan Jones MP in the other place, to name just two.

The scandal is an absolute disgrace on so many levels: financially, judicially and on a human level. Most worryingly, it is a governmental oversight failure as well. We all know the details: thousands of sub-postmasters sacked or prosecuted in the space of 16 years and wrongfully labelled as thieves and fraudsters by the Post Office, Fujitsu and our judicial system. Their lives were made hell, and all because of an IT glitch in the system. What makes this so shameful are the lengths to which Post Office Ltd went to cover it up. The fact that it spent £32 million denying these claims and bullying those wrongfully accused into false guilty pleas is bad enough. But what makes this story even worse is that we got the national moral outrage not when the cases went to the highest court in the land and were won, three years ago, but only when ITV produced a drama on the scandal. As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked earlier, where has the moral outrage of the state been in the last two decades?

Many postmasters and postmistresses have so far received only a fraction of their costs and expenses. Can the Minister guarantee that compensation payments will immediately follow any exonerations under the terms of the scheme as they stand today, and can he indicate any sort of timescale for this? We have waited so long. I know that he, like his predecessors, appreciates that victims cannot continue to wait for years for payments. Sixty sub-postmasters have died since the scandal, four of them taking their own lives. The final compensation is critical, but so too is overturning the convictions. Justice must be served for those workers and their families, which is why Labour has called for all sub-postmasters to be exonerated in full. As my colleague Jonathan Reynolds MP said in the Commons,

“I extend our support for any actions that may be required to overturn these convictions as quickly as possible”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/24; col. 84.]

One of the lessons we have learned—the Minister touched on this—is the trauma and lack of trust that the whole process has caused for the victims. We want to ensure that no victim has to re-enter litigation and relive the traumas that they have experienced. We also welcome the announced review into private prosecutions, because the public want assurances that nothing like this can ever be allowed to happen again. One of the most alarming and shameful aspects of the whole scandal is the failure of our courts and our judicial system. In all the cases of the sub-postmasters being wrongfully found guilty, the courts believed the computer. There were originally 640 legal cases, although I think there are more now. How did that not ring alarm bells at the time? I hope the inquiry will also look into the legal processes that exacerbated the problem.

In conclusion, I will press the Government on a few of the key matters. First, can the Minister confirm the timescale on the overturning of those wrongly convicted so that they can carry on with their lives? Secondly, this is not just a Post Office issue; Fujitsu as the provider has its share of culpability. What plans do the Government have to hold Fujitsu to account for its actions? Thirdly, how much money has the Post Office spent on prosecuting the sub-postmasters and then on defending itself against them over the last 20 years? Fourthly, have the Government made any assessment of the impact of the 2014 law changes on the ability of people wrongly convicted and imprisoned to claim compensation in a scandal? Fifthly, are there any plans to seek redress from the chief executive, the Post Office board and the senior management at the time who oversaw this scandal? Finally, why did it take a TV drama for the Government to act so decisively when parliamentarians in this place and others have been raising this scandal for more than a decade?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, it has taken a television drama to set light to what has been smouldering for a very long time. I suppose that all those associated with that drama should be congratulated, because they have managed to do what we failed to do: to ignite public indignation to such an extent that the Government had to move. In that respect, they deserve a great deal of congratulations. Of course, the script has been played out here and, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, at the start, and others, we are very familiar with it.

I have a few questions about where we are now. First, we welcome the news that Scotland Yard is looking into potential offences in relation to the Post Office overall, but can the Minister confirm that this will be able to progress in a speedy way in a twin-track approach alongside the public inquiry? It is very important that both these things can happen as fast as possible. We do not want one to impede the other, so can the Minister assure us that this twin-track approach will be pursued?

Turning to compensation, in the case of individual assessment, can the Minister please enlighten your Lordships’ House on the role of retired judge Gary Hickinbottom’s panel? This was announced only on Monday and, according to the Minister then, this panel is apparently going to assess the pecuniary losses for those with overturned convictions if there is a disagreement. Is this now obsolete, or will it still be operating? If it is still operating, why does it deal with only pecuniary issues when the Secretary of State has on a number of occasions said that this harm goes way beyond simply those? How is this to be incorporated into the two announcements spread over three days?

In the Commons, the Father of the House, Peter Bottomley, said that

“the titanic error was a belief in technology”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/10/24; col 86.].

It was that belief, coupled with zero faith in the decency of the sub-postmasters, that set the problem going. In that, the role of Fujitsu was central, and it is clear that the failure of its technology was at the heart of the issue. It remains to be seen how it perpetuated the myth of its technology, and that is what the public inquiry will address; but however you look at it, it continues to benefit from UK consumers’ and taxpayers’ money. It is still operating Horizon for POL, and benefiting as a result to the tune of tens of millions of pounds annually. That is not all: further government contracts have been issued. Is this right? Is it appropriate that this should continue?

Speaking yesterday, the Work and Pensions Secretary, Mel Stride, is quoted as having stressed that not only the taxpayer will be on the hook for this compensation. The spirit of that was reiterated by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Kevin Hollinrake, today. So, does this now signal that the Government are going after Fujitsu for money to support the compensation of these people?

It is a terrible saga, but it has demonstrated characteristics of other sagas we have seen. For example, the process of compensating the victims of the Windrush scandal has been achingly slow. The contaminated blood scandal has dragged on and on. Another terrible example is the way the Hillsborough tragedy victims have been denied justice. There is a pattern of denial, cover-up, and then redress being delivered at a very slow pace. Does the Minister agree that there appear to be institutional problems that we ought to try to address?

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that very important question. I can clarify that this is not a case of being pardoned; these convictions are being overturned. The primary legislation will take account of all of these convictions en bloc; it would take too long to go through each individual case and it would be too stressful. Of the 983 convictions, only 20% of the victims have actually come forward—so many people are just scunnered with the situation that they are in. Therefore, this will be a blanket overturn of convictions.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, we on the Labour Benches welcome the Government’s Horizon announcement, although more details would be appreciated, especially on the timescale. I hope there will be more detail in the Statement. Given the emergence of new pilot scheme victims since the ITV drama, how confident are the Government that they are aware of everyone who has been affected? What steps are they taking to make sure that all those affected are identified and fully compensated—surely Fujitsu has that data?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

When it comes to data, there are all sorts of confidentiality requirements that need to be kept. We know that a considerable number of claimants have come forward—more than 100—since the TV programme. We think that the total number of postmasters involved is about 3,500. We have compensated 2,700 of those already, and we will leave no stone unturned to make sure that we reach everybody affected by this scandal.

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

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 14th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments includes a number of calls for reviews and impact assessments of the intellectual property chapter of the partnership agreement.

I have listened with interest to the case made by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for Amendment 12 on artists’ resale rights. He rightly draws attention to the importance of Asian countries to the international art market. Amendment 28 from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, seeks an impact assessment of the implementation of performers’ rights in the CPTPP. Amendment 24 from the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, seeks a review of the intellectual property chapter within one year, which seems too short a period. The noble Earl’s Amendment 12 also requires an impact assessment within 12 months, which, as several noble Lords have said, would be too soon. Amendment 28’s requirement for an impact assessment within three years seems more realistic and reasonable. I hope my noble friend will respond positively to it. I also look forward to his reply on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on performers’ rights.

On the intellectual property chapter, I was happy to learn that the concerns previously expressed by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys about possible conflicts between that chapter of the partnership agreement and the UK’s membership of the European Patent Convention have been satisfactorily resolved. Can my noble friend confirm that?

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for speaking to their amendments. I will touch on my amendment in this group. The detail the noble Lord has gone into raises a number of questions, and the detailed answers he seeks will cover all the amendments in this group.

My amendment is very straightforward; we have further groups later on seeking reviews of the negotiation. I understand the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about this being within one year, but we are in a very new situation with the CPTPP. Learning lessons quickly, both positive and negative ones, is crucial to our making correct decisions in future on FTAs and other negotiations.

Amendment 24 seeks a review within one year of the day on which the Act is passed. The Secretary of State must publish both

“a review of the lessons learned from the negotiation of the CPTPP Chapter on intellectual property”—

as we have heard, there are still a large number of questions outstanding there—

“and … an assessment of how this experience might inform negotiations of future free trade agreements”.

It is very straightforward.

Like others who have spoken before me, I have had a number of representations from UK Music and the Alliance for Intellectual Property. I seek clarification from the Minister of one of the points made by UK Music. There is a concern that the CPTPP parties are allowed to opt out of some of the IP provisions—for example, not recognising protection for the use of recorded music in broadcasting and public performance, which was one of the issues touched on earlier. The AfIP’s point was that

“the rush to join CPTPP may result in the embrace of IP”—

intellectual property—

“standards that are significantly weaker than those present in UK law”,

and thus cause growth issues.

I turn to geographical indicators, which may well come up in some of the later amendments and was touched on during our first day in Committee. There is a specific issue concerning the UK-Japan deal, which was rolled over. Geographical indication brand protection was promised in the UK-Japan agreement but was never delivered on. When the agreement was announced in October 2020, the then Trade Secretary, Liz Truss, promised that 77 specialist UK food and drink products would be guaranteed protected geographical indication status, alongside the seven that were then carried over from the previous EU-Japan trade deal. The former Department for International Trade said that the protections would be in place by May 2021 for all 77 new products. I will not list them all, although I am more than happy to. They included some iconic brands: Scottish beef, the Cornish pasty, Welsh lamb and Wensleydale cheese, to name but a few.

The DIT also boasted that, thanks to Liz Truss’s agreement, the UK would benefit from a fast-track process for securing brand protection that would not have been possible under the EU-Japan deal. It said that:

“The EU must negotiate each new GI individually on a case-by-case basis.”


The EU has added an extra 84 products to the protected list since October 2020, including 28 fairly recently, and the number of EU GIs with Japan now stands at 291, while the UK is still stuck with only seven protected products, which we inherited from the EU-Japan deal. Given this, can UK producers of geographically identified products be confident in the measures in the CPTPP, and is there any danger of the same occurring now with British food and drink products, putting them more at risk? Finally, will the Government revisit the UK-Japan agreement and deliver on those originally promised protections?

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for returning to this important discussion of the various ways in which they are looking to improve our CPTPP Bill. I hope I can give them some good answers, illustrating my belief that we have a very good deal, the integrity of which we should try to retain as much as possible.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who is an expert on many things, said that he had yet to come across an expert who could clearly explain artists’ and performers’ broadcast rights. I am well aware of this, as are noble Lords. I will try to do so today but, given that no one has so far managed to do so convincingly, I hope noble Lords will allow me to write giving further clarification and useful examples and anecdotes. It is certainly a complex point.

The CPTPP brings to bear on the United Kingdom an additional series of obligations regarding performers’ rights. Currently, if you are a performer of, let us say, British nationality, and/or your performance is in the United Kingdom, you are entitled to the performance rights. The CPTPP looks at performances and rights in a slightly different fashion. In the instance of a performance taking place in a non-CPTPP country—which is where the controversy of this issue has arisen—it could qualify for artists’ performance rights payments if it was released or produced in a CPTPP country or if there was another necessary association with a CPTPP country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging debate across a large number of issues. Many of the points on which noble Lords have gone into detail were picked up at Second Reading, so I shall take in the comments made then with those of noble Lords who have spoken to amendments today and feed in all the information that we need.

I tabled three amendments on climate and labour standards and I shall focus on the labour standards one, which has been touched only on in passing. I thank noble Lords who have offered support. I shall turn to Amendment 25 and then take a step back to climate and other issues. Trade unions all over the globe have found consensus in concerns regarding CPTPP’s inadequate measures properly to enforce the ILO standards, which is why the amendment calls for an impact assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I just press the Minister for some reaction to the fact that his department’s impact assessment shows a deleterious effect on our financial services sector. What is the department’s approach to those figures in its report?

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

On my Amendment 25, I am more than happy for the Minister to write to me and the rest of the Committee on labour standards and ILO conventions and adherence to them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride]

19: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact assessment: local businessThe Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP Chapter on government procurement on the level of procurement by local authorities from businesses in the respective local authority area, not less than two years, but not more than three years, after the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an assessment of the impact of the procurement Chapter on local businesses.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, we are now on to the fourth group so we are getting there. We have been through the bulk of the detailed amendments, so these should be relatively straightforward. There are four amendments in this group, all in my name, so I will work through them. They all seek to have assessments of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP after two years. If we come back to these on Report, we will look to change that timing to being from accession rather than from the Act being passed, which is eminently sensible. As the Minister has said, a review will take place on the four areas I have highlighted—local business, manufacturing, the job market and public services. I am sure that he will be more than happy to accept into it.

To go into a little detail within those four areas, we are concerned that the CPTPP could open up public procurement markets, restricting public authorities’ ability to support local businesses that recognise trade unions or pay the living wage, so there is a concern regarding the criteria provisions of the CPTPP and the fact that in some cases they are narrower than the UK procurement laws and could encourage more contracts to be based solely on lower prices rather than quality and access to integrity of service provision. On local businesses, we seek clarification from the Minister that this is not the case.

I turn to the manufacturing sector, where again we have concerns that the CPTPP could pose threats to jobs as it would make it easier, to take an example, for Vietnam to export goods to the UK that could include cheap Chinese steel or other manufactured goods such as tyres, cement and glass deliberately routed through Vietnam to avoid remedies and tariffs. The Trades Union Congress is concerned that this could increase the rate of trade dumping in the UK manufacturing sectors, putting thousands of jobs in steel and related supply chains at risk.

In 2017 the European Commission found that China had been shipping steel from Vietnam to evade tariffs, which led to dumping in the UK steel sector. The risk of increased dumping from Vietnam, as well as other countries, is compounded by the fact that the UK trade remedy system is currently too weak to be effective. The TUC is part of the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance with the Unite, GMB and Community trade unions as well as a number of manufacturing employers’ associations. They are calling for stronger measures to deal with dumping from countries such as China and Vietnam in legislation and the removal of the public interest and economic interest tests, which prevent effective trade remedies being applied.

I turn to the job market. Following conversations with the TUC, I know there are concerns that the CPTPP may lead to job losses in some sectors due to increased imports from CPTPP countries. Of course there will be benefits from increased trade, but how do we ensure that important sectors of UK manufacturing are protected? I seek some reassurance from the Minister on that.

I turn to the public sector. CPTPP accession could also expose public services to further privatisation as it takes the negative list approach to service listings. This means that any services not explicitly exempted will be opened up to further privatisation. In the past, the Government have not adequately excluded services in trade deals to offer that protection. Meanwhile, the Government’s ability to exempt public services adequately in the CPTPP would be severely restricted as the UK would be joining the existing agreement with the 11, rather than at the start. This weakens and reduces our power to alter it. I beg to move Amendment 19.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful, as always, for the debate we have had around these important points. I hope noble Lords will agree that I have covered in previous groups the importance of reviewing these free trade agreements and how they impact our economy. As I say, I passionately believe that they will be enormously positive. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, may be overestimating the threats in areas such as privatisation, steel dumping and so on. We have strong protections from the TRA protecting our economy in areas such as steel. This free trade agreement does not affect our ability to control that area of our economy.

I am afraid that I cannot see how this FTA would lead to increased levels of privatisation. We have been very careful about protecting key areas of our economy. To some extent, my job as Investment Minister is to encourage flows of capital into the UK, and we were asked earlier for impact assessments around that. I would be comfortable with seeing flows of capital from CPTPP member countries into the UK: we are aligned with them, and they are our allies—we want to do more trade with them—but I do not think it will lead to the negative consequences to which the noble Lord alluded. However, I am comfortable to have further discussions. As I said earlier, we should look carefully in these debates at the sorts of areas that we wish to review to make sure that the impacts around FTAs are properly understood, but I would be very reluctant to have them codified in amendments to this Bill, for obvious reasons.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response. As he outlined earlier, there will be an opportunity to review the implementation of the CPTPP in two years. The point of these probing amendments was just to put on record the importance of the sectors in these specific areas. He has put in Hansard, in his own words, that there will be no derogations in those areas, and I look forward to holding him to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 19.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride]

26: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Review: Investor-State Dispute SettlementThe Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the financial risk of the implementation of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement aspect of the Investment Chapter of the CPTPP, not more than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a review of the risk to the UK from implementing the Investment Chapter.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

This is a small group of amendments from my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and me on ISDS and the mechanism that comes with it. I am sure the Minister will respond, “Don’t worry, it will all be fine, the UK hasn’t been sued”—but we have. We and the French Government were sued with regard to previous issues on this.

My concern relates to two areas. First is the accession of Canada, which has shown under previous trade remedies to be quite keen, or at least a number of businesses in it have been. We have seen that in recent years. The other issue I am keen to put on the record and on which I seek clarification from the Minister is around the UK, or individual countries, changing their approach because of possible threats. I know that that is hypothetical—we do not want to go down to hypotheticals—but often Governments do not move forward with specific issues because there is a possibility of disputes or because in other areas there have been disputes raised against them.

The investor-state dispute settlement allows foreign companies to sue a Government for any actions that they argue could affect their profits. Conversely, it allows British companies—the Minister may well pick up on this—to sue other Governments that breach ours. In the past, the ISDS court system has been used to challenge increases in minimum wage and countries’ internal attempts to bring public services back into public ownership. When New Zealand joined the CPTPP, it opted out of the ISDS system with the countries that invested most in New Zealand. Why have the UK Government not asked for such exemptions? As a result, rather than taking back control, with the CPTPP the Government are possibly handing multinational corporations huge powers to challenge the potential overturn of UK government decisions and laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this important series of amendments and the discussion that we have been able to have around them. Since this relates to investor-state dispute settlements and I have investments in CPTPP countries, I declare that and direct all noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests—although I do not believe that I have any specific conflict and I am always happy to answer questions on any of those points.

For me, ISDSs are a very important element of protecting our businesses’ investments overseas. I spend a lot of my time talking to companies that make significant investments in many countries and, where they do not feel that they have protections, it creates a far higher level of work for the Government in trying to support them when they have disputes and clearly increases the hurdles for the necessary rate of return. So, from our point of view, having mechanisms where investors feel protected when investing into the UK economy by the consistency of the rule of law and the application of that law is very important. We are very comfortable with signing up to investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.

The question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on whether the FTA or signing up through the CPTPP is linked to ISDS, is perfectly reasonable. My view is that it would not make any difference. I am very happy to confirm that in writing. You would not pursue an ISDS case according to a specific route: from the investment point of view, the country either has that relationship or does not.

To the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord McNicol, I say that an important element of our system is that we have protections for our businesses when they invest internationally and that international businesses investing in the UK can have a high degree of confidence. It does not, at any point, derogate or hinder our right to regulate in the public interest, including in areas such as the environment and labour standards. In fact, this right to regulate is recognised in international law, and CPTPP expressly preserves states’ rights to regulate proportionately, fairly and in the public interest.

The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, is right to say that we have received a claim from investors relating to an ISDS. I do not think that that came from a CPTPP country, and it was in conjunction with another country. That is a fact, but not one that is necessarily in contradiction with the point that we have never singularly, acting on our own basis, had a successful claim made against us. That is important. We have nothing to fear without ISDSs, and I reaffirm that our flexibility to enact the legislation and frameworks that we want to run our country is not impeded if we stick to the rule of law and understand and respect the rights of investors putting their money in the United Kingdom.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. The bit I am struggling with is the contradiction, and I do not think that he has answered that yet: we signed side-letters excluding ISDS with New Zealand and Australia, yet the Minister says how important they are. How does he balance these positions?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. We did accede, in terms of their negotiating priorities, to do that. We have long-lasting relationships with Australia and New Zealand, and we are comfortable allowing that to be the case as part of the negotiating process. The point is whether we are willing to sign up for them, and my point to noble Lords is that we are. Clearly, we need to make sure these processes are properly followed and that they suit us into the future—but currently, today, we are very comfortable signing up for them. I think it gives us, and our businesses, benefit, and creates an overall higher level of investment confidence within CPTPP countries, and within the UK.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Davies for his detailed explanation of this. It may well be something we come back to on Report.

I thank the Minister for answering the question regarding the side-letters, who was pushing, and how they came to fruition. I think that was important. The Minister’s position is that this is about protecting our companies. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is a bit more detailed, but my Amendment 26 is simply calling for a review of the financial risks. I think that works well with the Minister’s position, so at this point I withdraw my amendment, but I am well come back to this on Report.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

Construction Sector: Cash Retentions

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that contribution. The Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 require the larger UK companies to report on a half-yearly basis on payment practices, policy and performance. The onus is increasing on them around transparency. The sector welcomes increasing reporting regulations. Build UK, the leading construction trade body, has been benchmarking construction companies on their payments since 2018, and improvements have been considerable. In 2018, the average time for paying invoices was 45 days, and it is now 32 days; the figure for invoices paid within agreed terms is now 82%, versus 61%, and for invoices paid within 60 days it is now 95% versus 82%. That shows that the construction industry can work positively in this area.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, similar to cash retention, late payments are a perennial problem, especially for SMEs and microbusinesses. Over the last 10 years, the Conservative party in government has launched no fewer than seven reviews into late payments. What recommendations have come from those reviews, and what benefits have SMEs seen from those seven reviews?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. As I indicated, the direction of travel has improved considerably, with the construction sector working positively to reduce the amount of late payments. Working with the contractors’ umbrella body, Actuate UK, and the new Get it Right initiative, I think we will see some improvements. We are trying to get defects and collection and completion certificates using processes developed by the Get it Right initiative, which are going to be data-based, to try to get a metric system which is more objective and less subjective and which can measure performance and indicate at an early stage whether it has been to the right standard. That will go a long way towards allowing earlier payment on retentions.

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

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 7th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly join this debate because I am interested in the question of the mutual recognition of conformity assessment. Earlier this year, the Department for Business and Trade said that it would accept CE markings on a range of products for the foreseeable future—or something like that. That led to a certain amount of confusion, with the medical devices industry wondering whether it extended to medical devices. Of course, it did not extend to that industry; the Department of Health and Social Care has that responsibility. If my memory serves me right, the CE marking is certain to be recognised until 2027.

If my noble friend the Minister were to ask me for something we should aim to achieve in the trade and co-operation agreement review, it would certainly be to extend mutual recognition agreements between us and the European Union so that it recognises the UK conformity assessment and we continue to recognise the CE marking. That would afford enormous benefit to the industry.

This is not a mutual recognition agreement; this is giving the opportunity to conformity assessment bodies in CPTPP countries to apply to UK authorities so that, in effect, they provide themselves with UK conformity assessment on their products for trade, presumably within CPTPP countries and with the United Kingdom. Of course, if you are producing products for which you want a UK conformity assessment, being able to do your work according to the UK standards in your own country may well be a useful advantage. That is why it is in Article 8.6 of the CPTPP agreement.

Therefore, I am not sure that we need to worry about the question of “to what standards”. The answer is in the design of this provision. It is to the standard required for a UK conformity assessment. The bodies in any other country that are accredited for this purpose have to work to the same standards as if they were doing so in the UK, so it is pretty straightforward. However, happily, it affords the opportunity to say that there is a step beyond this, which is mutual recognition. For example, among the CPTPP countries one might anticipate, for example in our relationship with Japan at some point, a move on to mutual recognition of conformity assessment, since in many respects the Government naturally are thinking, “That is the territory that we need to go on”. As we develop trade relations and as we develop free trade agreements, eliminating technical barriers to trade should be one of our principal objectives—and this is one important aspect of that.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, explained that this is a probing amendment, so I do not have a great deal to add to what he and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, have said.

I pick up on one point: how do we ensure the conformity of that oversight when the products are coming into the UK? In the sixth group, which I do not think we will get to today, we will look at bringing in a good number of impact assessments and reports. The strongest part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is the call for the publishing of a report on the impact of provisions on the treatment of conformity assessment bodies. That will give your Lordships’ House and Parliament the opportunity and oversight to ensure that there is no undercutting of quality and services. However, I am happy to support this probing amendment and look forward to more clarity from the Minister.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, I was unable to participate at Second Reading. I was asked by the Lord Speaker to be part of the reception party for the President of South Korea, which was a great honour.

I am very interested in this Bill. I have been involved with Japanese civil servants and Japanese companies in discussions leading up to the UK’s application for accession. I am very much aware of how important it was to the Government of Japan that the UK should accede to this partnership and as early as possible. Many Japanese associates have told me that they welcome that the UK will be able to exercise a de facto joint leadership of this group with Japan in the initial period, which will help ensure that the CPTPP functions efficiently and in the interests of all its members. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that we do not want the CPTPP to enable substandard goods to come in. Obviously, it will be very good, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, if we can move towards mutual recognition of conformity assessment bodies, especially with countries such as Japan and with other CPTPP members.

However, I am not sure that this amendment is necessary. If the conformity assessment bodies are doing their job, they will have to apply for the granting of equivalents of the standards to which the goods to be imported conform in their own country. Therefore, this amendment is possibly otiose because conformity assessment bodies will have to do this anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Committee is in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He is rare among us in being able to identify the questions, ask them and then come up with a sensible answer, all in one. He did so on this. I am slightly anxious, because he took away the only thing I was going to mention: tied aid and some of the experiences that we have unfortunately had with it—we have banned it in the UK—and the Pergau dam situation with regards to contracts that have been issued. We have memories of how this can go awry.

I record a recent visit I made to Vietnam. I wish to see UK trade with Vietnam grow and am very supportive of any areas in which we can make that happen, but in some CPTPP member countries it is less clear than it is in the UK what the balance is between private and public enterprises and what are the funding mechanisms of bodies that would be open to potentially benefit from UK procurement access. The noble Lord asked valid questions, and I have a degree of sympathy with his conclusion that it would be worth accepting his amendment.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, there is very little to add to the detailed probing question—and answers—from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a constant pleasure to debate with such intellectual firepowers as the noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. It is a joy to learn new things, every day, about the opportunities and benefits of free trade, particularly the CPTPP treaty itself.

However, in this instance, the Government are not keen to accept the amendment, for the simple reason that this strikes me as an absolutely eminent clarification of the procurement relationship between a UK procurer covered by the CPTPP legislation and the international procurer who would not be covered by it. It clarifies the point that, if we are in a minority funding position, we have to be in a majority funding position in order to qualify under our own procurement legislation.

Therefore, this does something very sensible: it confirms that point. I am happy to clarify this further with the noble Lord outside this room, but it would be difficult for procuring agents in the UK who were not in control of the funding process to conform to the CPTPP procurement funding processes or our own national processes. That is why this is clarified. Otherwise, if you have a minority position, you do not have control over it—if you are putting in only a small amount of capital, it makes sense for the international body to make the procurement decisions.

Maybe I have missed something, but this strikes me as quite straightforward. I felt that, of all the amendments placed today, what we were doing here seemed to make things easier and clearer, rather than more opaque.

--- Later in debate ---

namely, the date of the application for protection of the GI—would be a better way of describing it. I would be grateful to be educated in this matter by my noble friend. I beg to move.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. The Trade Marks Act 1994 at no point uses the phrase “established by use”. However, it specifically makes provision for registered trademarks, whereas—this was the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley; he may be wrong and looking for clarification from the Minister—if it is established by use then it would presumably be unregistered, as he said. Therefore, would it not be subject to common law through the concept known as “passing off”? With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

As always, I am grateful to noble Lords for their points. Clearly, it is easy to confuse trademarks and geographical indications. With geographical indications, there is a principle of established use, whereas with trademarks, something is either trademarked or it is not. That is why we are comfortable with the language as it sits.

There is no reference in the Trade Marks Act 1994 to the concept of “established by use”, because the concept refers to unregistered trademarks, whereas the Trade Marks Act is concerned principally with protections conferred on registered marks. However, “established by use” has meaning under the law relating to geographical indications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lord Lansley has just said. There is considerable room for confusion between trademarks and geographic indications, a relatively new concept, especially the application of restrictions or protections for geographic indications in countries whose language is not only not English but is far away from any language used in the European Union. Consider, for example, suits. A common word for a suit of clothes in Japanese is “sebiro”, which comes from “Savile Row”. Is that not a kind of geographic indication? I think there is scope for considerable confusion there.

The other amendment in this group, Amendment 34, was ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I worry about giving additional protection to the precautionary principle. Putting too much store by the precautionary principle has led us to be too averse to risk in many aspects of our national life and it is likely to lead to restrictions on the economic growth that we so badly need. Our accession to CPTPP is an opportunity to enhance that growth by developing more trade with the fastest-growing part of the world, including countries which place less store on the precautionary principle. I worry that, if we try to export the unduly cumbersome regulatory regime that we have had until now into countries that are growing faster and which have a more proportionate approach to the subject, it will cause, at best, restrictions on us taking up the opportunities that are available.

Lastly, I entirely agree with the good point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, that our accession may not take effect until a year or more after the passage of the Act, and so the question of the timing of the report being made to Parliament is a very appropriate one.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, let us deal with this Second Reading issue. My understanding of the Companion is that there is no need to have spoken at Second Reading. It is very nice that noble Lords have apologised but there is no need; all are welcome in Committee, even if they did not speak at Second Reading, and so noble Lords do not need to give excuses for why they were not there.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, touched on a point about restrictions. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies is a neat way of dealing with a number of the issues that will arise and that we will need to deal with. Let us take environmental principles and look at a number of the countries that we will be joining with in CPTPP. Take pesticides, which I am sure will come up again in the next group, on our second day in Committee. PAN UK analysis conducted in 2021 revealed that there are 119 pesticides, active substances, that we have banned in the UK to protect our health and environment but which are still permitted in one or more of the CPTTP member countries. Of that total, 67 are classified as highly hazardous pesticides. If these pesticides are used in these countries just now, and we have banned them in this country for very good and sensible reasons, how do the department and the Government protect consumers and farmers in the UK? The way to do that is very neatly set out in the amendment laid by my noble friend about taking note of this and the Secretary of State having to deal with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggests that I should go into great detail explaining the whole issue of performers’ rights. I will disappoint him and other Members of the Committee because I am sure that those with an interest in it know that, basically, it is about performers and, in some cases, record label owners and so on receiving appropriate payment for their performances that take place in another country. It seems absolute common sense that if we do a deal with country X, we arrange it so that if our performers perform there we get payment and vice versa. Reciprocity seems pretty fundamental.

I have produced an amendment which says that in this legislation we ought simply to say that the reciprocal arrangements are with CPTPP member countries. Having raised real concerns about our failure during negotiations to make any progress on a number of intellectual property issues or to provide some of the support that our creative industries were seeking, I nevertheless welcome that this is part of the treaty. However, the question remains whether what I am seeking—a simple reciprocity agreement—is happening. The truth is that it is not.

I am enormously grateful to the Minister, who, after I raised these issues in basic terms as I have just done, wrote to me to explain the situation. I hope he will not mind but, to save him repeating it in his speech, I will read a little of what he wrote to me:

“The changes the Bill makes are necessary for the UK to accede to CPTPP and will expand the basis on which foreign performers can qualify for rights in UK law. In addition to the Bill, the Government will be making accompanying secondary legislation under existing powers”


and various other things to make sure that it all happens. That is fine, but he went on:

“The changes in the Bill will apply not only to performers from CPTPP countries but also those with a connection to other countries that are party to relevant treaties relating to performers’ rights to which the UK is also party. This is necessary to comply with the UK’s national treatment and most favoured nation obligations in those treaties”.


He is saying that if we do something with CPTPP countries, we would have to take into account our other treaty obligations and the impact it would have elsewhere. He adds:

“Beyond these changes, however, the UK has some flexibility under its international obligations around how it provides certain rights to foreign nationals, in particular the right of performers to receive equitable remuneration (i.e. a share of the royalties) when their performances are broadcast or played in public”.


In other words, what we have in the legislation at the moment, as I understand it, are changes that mean that we take account of what is going to happen in relation to reciprocal arrangements with CPTPP member countries as well as a stack of other changes that will take place, affecting our relationship with other countries, with some possible variation in how we deal with them. I absolutely understand that it would make life very easy for the Government to sweep these things up all at once, but it leaves us totally in the dark on exactly who we are dealing with and what the implications are, particularly for the music industry. The music industry is extremely concerned about this. It has told me that it has had discussions with the Minister and officials, that it got the information about all this at very short notice, and that it was unable to make any progress with getting the Minister to see things differently.

Its argument, and that which I would make—it is exactly the same as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—is as follows. If consequential changes are necessary in relation to countries beyond those that are members of the CPTPP, there is plenty of time between now and accession—we debated this earlier and all accept it is nine months away or possibly more—for the IPO to consult on the other issues referred to in the Minister’s letter and for us then to have an opportunity to debate their implications before they are brought in. The legislative arrangements to do that are very clear.

I am deeply concerned that these proposals are coming from the IPO, which in many respects does very good work but sometimes runs ahead of things, as it did with its proposals for text and data mining, for example. They came as a huge shock, were massively opposed and were eventually withdrawn and have not gone ahead—I am grateful to the Government for doing that. I do not want a repetition of that, so I hope it is possible for the Minister to accept an amendment that says, “For the time being, let’s concentrate on reciprocal arrangements with CPTPP member countries but, separately, have consultation on all the other things that the Minister wants to achieve so we can have an opportunity after the consultation to know what the impact will be, and then we can make a decision”.

I want to see that information before I decide whether those changes are right. The Minister may already have seen some information, because the one bit of his letter that I did not read out suggests that the department has already come to a conclusion. It states, at the end:

“As such, we expect the direct impacts of the measures … on UK parties to be small”.


I do not know whether that is true. I do not know what the implications are—nor, I think, do other Members of the Committee. The Minister may have a response that reassures me that we can go ahead in the way that the Government propose, but, given the lack of consultation we have had to date on those other issues, it would be helpful to proceed in the ways that either I or the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, have proposed—both achieve the same end.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 10 in this group. It is a short, probing amendment, and I have a few questions on it for the Minister. Again, it touches on performers’ rights. Clause 5(5) refers to

“an act done … before the commencement date”.

It is specifically about acts that have taken place in the past. My questions for the Minister are detailed, so I am more than happy for him to write to me, because I do not think this will make it through to Report.

Are there any practical impacts on the performers, and, if so, what are they? Does this date back indefinitely or is there a timeframe or time limit for when the performance act took place? Finally, is there anything that performers need to do to protect themselves with the CPTPP being put in place, or any guidance on it? Again, I am happy to support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Foster, but I am seeking some clarification about performers’ historic acts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am very happy to have conversations about this. Clearly, these FTAs make it difficult, if we are to comply with them, to have various and significant amendments to them. However, I am reassured by my officials that, in making significant changes to “qualifying countries”, we would make sure that there was an appropriate level of consultation. I am very sensitive about making great promises from the Dispatch Box because I always find myself getting into trouble later, but I hope that—

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

No, I think it is good. Carry on.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, would like me to make off-the-cuff commitments on behalf of the Government. It would be only logical to assume that there would be a degree of consultation in the same way that we are effecting one in this instance but, since I cannot give a firm commitment, I am very comfortable to come back to my noble friend between now and Report.

Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction, which has, I think, answered my questions. As when we discussed the Bill in this House, my concern is very much with the status of the devolved Administrations, the issues and implications for the devolved Governments and the different systems that exist within the nations of the UK for both professional qualifications and the education system that feeds into them.

I have one small remaining question. The Minister referred to English language proficiency. If there were to be a requirement within a particular profession for the Welsh language in Wales, would that also be satisfactorily recognised in these regulations?

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

I also thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, for outlining and explaining the regulations, which are largely uncontentious. I will pick up a few of the issues that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—the SLSC—raised. I am sure that the Minister will be well aware of them but they are worth touching on.

Before that, on the regulations themselves, do the Government expect the new RPQ system to have any bearing on immigration levels? If it is expected to be net neutral overall, are there any particular sectors that may be affected either way, positively or negatively? Are there any staffing gaps? The Minister talked about exporting British talent around the globe but are there any particular gaps within the UK that we are hoping to use these measures to help fill, in terms of inward migration?

The Department for Business and Trade says that this may require regulators to change some of their current processes. The Government acknowledged this impact but a full impact assessment has not been carried out or produced. So have the Government made any assessment of the extent of the requirements? In his introduction, the Minister said that they expect it to be minimal, but can he elaborate on that a little? Can he highlight any particular areas where that impact would be most severe?

Also, with the new timeframe, from my reading of the Explanatory Memorandum and the SLSC papers on this, I think there may be some issues for a few of the regulators with the reduced timescale for turning round their regulations.

I turn to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report and some of the areas it touches on, which the Minister has raised. The Department for Business and Trade said that the consultation with regulators received “generally supportive” feedback. This is one of the areas on which the SLSC takes the department and the regulations to task, because there was no publication of the consultation. In fact, the committee goes on to say:

“Where a consultation is conducted, a full analysis of the consultation responses should always be published at the time an instrument is laid before Parliament. … It is therefore important that an analysis of the feedback is made available, in the interest of transparency and so that all relevant material is available to support the scrutiny process”.


Does the Minister agree, and will he aim to make sure that this is dealt with in future consultations? I think we have the RPQ with Switzerland coming in the next few months. Can the Minister ensure that a full consultation will be carried out and published?

The committee report mentions:

“The Department for Business and Trade is deliberating how to broaden and deepen its approach to engagement on trade policy, to ensure it is fit for purpose”.


Has there been any progress on looking to broaden and deepen its approach to trade policy to make sure it is fit for purpose?

My final point is on paragraph 13 on page 4:

“We welcome the Department’s commitment to consider how to improve its consultation and engagement processes ahead of any future negotiations on RPQ and trade agreements”.


I agree with that statement, but I also think it is very weak, and I wondered if I could push the Minister to move a little further from the word “consider” to “deliver”. Will his department look to deliver how to improve consultation and engagement process rather than just consider?

Turning to the Explanatory Memorandum at the back of the draft statutory instrument, I shall raise only one point about paragraph 3, where, under

“Matters of special interest to Parliament”


and

“Matters of special interest to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments”


the department has written, “None”. That is fair enough, but there is an SLSC report which raises a number of concerns, and it would have been nice to see in the Explanatory Memorandum some note on the issues that have been raised by the SLSC. With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Northern Ireland Investment Summit

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her compliments. The effort around the Northern Ireland Investment Summit was huge, and everyone played their part. I am pleased to say all parties also played their part, including Joe Kennedy III in his leadership as President Biden’s envoy to Northern Ireland. I will certainly review the concept with the Northern Ireland Office around the matter the noble Baroness mentioned, but I believe that our Secretary of State is a phenomenal advocate for Northern Ireland and a significant ambassador in encouraging investment, as is my noble friend Lord Caine, who spends much of his time travelling around the world getting more money into Northern Ireland, so that everyone can prosper.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the messages that came out of the Northern Ireland Investment Summit was the need for political stability to encourage much needed investment, with Joe Biden even saying that US firms would be willing to pump billions of dollars into the Northern Ireland economy if there was more political stability. Recently, the Northern Ireland Secretary said talks to restore a functioning Executive in Northern Ireland were in their final phase. Will the Government provide an update on these negotiations?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am not sure whether the Government provide an ongoing commentary for such sensitive, but very important, negotiations. However, for me it is cause for great optimism that, a few weeks ago, Joe Kennedy III led a delegation, as a follow-up to the Northern Ireland Investment Summit, where a number of United States companies announced specific investments. Some 70 companies and business leaders accompanied him, so the appetite is there regardless. We totally push for a resolution to the formation of the Executive because we know that there is more to come.

British Steel

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to be back on Labour’s Front Bench. I thank the Lord Speaker and his office for their support in my time as one of the Lord Speaker’s deputies; it was a real pleasure.

I turn to today’s Urgent Question. The loss of up to 2,000 jobs at the Scunthorpe plant clearly will have a devastating effect on the local community. However, this transition will also leave the UK more reliant on steel imports, meaning that we will no longer be able to produce virgin steel made from smelting iron ore. What assessment have the Government made of the national security challenges that are posed by the UK no longer having this sovereign capability?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, obviously the loss of any jobs, particularly in a sector as important as steel, is to be deplored. However, there are commercial necessities that we are all fully aware of. The activity that the Government took in Port Talbot shows very clearly the commitment that we have to supporting the transition from historic steel-making to something more modern. As far as the production of virgin steel is concerned, the noble Lord is absolutely right that it will be affected by the closure of the smelting plants, but we will still be able to import limited amounts of iron ore pellets, which can be put towards the other steel that we have already within this country to produce what is required.