Prime Minister: Trade Unions

Lord Morris of Aberavon Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

It is very easy for Opposition Members to say that we should grant this and that pay rise, but only a limited number can be funded. The noble Baroness talks about PPE; I seem to remember that, when we had these debates in the House at the time, the Opposition Benches were united in telling us that we needed to procure more of it as quickly as possible and not let other things get in the way of delivering essential PPE for our health service professionals. That is what we did.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, does not the independent report predate a further surge in inflation? What do the Government consider to be appropriate to deal with that further surge?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am not familiar with the details of the negotiations. I can tell the noble and learned Lord only that the Government have accepted in full the recommendations of the pay review body. I assume that, when it reports again next year, it will take account of the inflation that has taken place this year.

Turkey: Free Trade Agreement

Lord Morris of Aberavon Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is good for the democratic process that the International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, scrutinises treaties and that we should have a timely debate today, which I welcome.

I suggest that there are at least three templates that we should develop for the foreseeable future: first, that the Government publish their negotiating objectives quite clearly; secondly, that there should be explicit advice that the Government have raised human rights and workers’ rights, as already mentioned—as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, we urge the Government to use the review clause in the agreement to introduce human rights and workers’ rights provisions; thirdly, that in the absence of successfully achieving our negotiating objectives and where we have to fall back on WTO terms in all our treaties, it should be tabulated, and we should have a running score on what we are falling back on.

On the first issue, we were concerned at the lack of an explicit confirmation that the Government would publish their negotiating position. Since then, we have received information in the terms already referred to, and I am concerned about the words of the reply. I am not quite sure what to make of the assurance received that:

“The Government will be able to comment in due course on how the publication of negotiating objectives will be handled in the case of our existing FTA with Turkey.”


It sounds more like Mandarin than English to me. Perhaps the Minister will give me a translation.

Secondly, on human rights and workers’ rights provisions, we have made our position quite clear, as other noble Lords have done already. I fear that these issues are sometimes approached with a tick-box mentality, bowing to them, as I suspect one does, when world leaders meet but getting very little in return. The TUC expressed great concern last year that Turkey was ranked among the 10 worst countries for workers’ rights according to the International Trade Union Confederation. I need not go further than what we have heard in this debate; I certainly assert in the same way.

Over the past few months, we have developed a good relationship with the Government as regards the devolved Assemblies. I am anxious to ensure that that is pursued and followed up, because it is important not only that they are consulted but that we are informed when they have concerns. This is now coming through loud and clear. It is vital that Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh are all consulted as part of the economic development of this country. I am certainly hawkish on this matter, for which I make no apology, having been one of the architects of Welsh devolution. With those few words, I indicate my agreement with the committee’s report.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. Lord Kerr? No? As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has withdrawn, I shall call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and perhaps we can return to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

Trade Bill

Lord Morris of Aberavon Excerpts

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

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, I am glad to add my name to those who have spoken in support of Amendment 24 and, yes, we have been here before many times over recent months. Clearly, I totally support the principle that trade agreements should be acceptable to devolved Governments—they may not have a veto, but that acceptance should be sought. The opposition and the reservations of the devolved Governments to the recent European agreement should be a timely reminder to the UK Government of the importance of securing that sort of consensus.

I have some reservations about the adequacy of both this amendment and of the Bill as it stands in meeting the needs of the Welsh Government, so I will pose a question to the Minister. If there were a UK agreement with New Zealand for the import of lamb in terms that would undermine Welsh hill farmers, what safeguards are in the Bill as it currently stands? If the Minister believes that this amendment is unnecessary, will he please tell me how the Bill as it stands meets such worries and how he can persuade the House and the Welsh Government of that fact?

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to say a few words on Amendment 24, which I support, moved by my noble friend Lord Stevenson. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I am concerned about the position of Welsh lamb, as I come from a family that has been breeding them for centuries now and continues so to do in three counties in Wales. If there were any barrier, inhibition or taxation on its export, it would ruin the hill farmers of Wales.

I am surprised that my noble friend had to table the amendment at all. I welcome what is devolved very much. I repeat what I have said many times: what is devolved is devolved and cannot be withdrawn without primary legislation. Proposed new subsections (2), (4) and (5) concern me. One of the side-effects of the coronavirus pandemic is a wake-up call to Whitehall that there are four Governments in the United Kingdom as far as health is concerned. I wish there had been more fruitful dialogue between Whitehall and each of the devolved Governments so that there was more uniformity. It was not to be, and I respect the decisions of the Welsh Government on matters entirely within their competence. I support the amendment.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like others who have spoken, I recall that I have spoken several times on similar amendments to this Bill, the then Agriculture Bill and the then United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. I do not intend to repeat previous speeches, but rather to challenge the Government to wake up and smell the coffee. Because, in spite of paying lip service to the contrary, Ministers have been careless or dismissive of the concerns of the devolved Administrations and clearly disregard the impact of this insouciance, coupled with incompetence, on the mood across the devolved Administrations, which has hardened. If they had a voice, mind you, I suspect that that mood would be articulated by a number of English regions as well.

Before we got here, the interconnection of the EU, the UK and devolved decision-making worked pretty well, but the transition to the UK outside the EU is clearly having a disruptive effect. The rise in the support for separatism, which has been commented on across the devolved Administrations, has been driven by the combination of incompetence and scathing indifference to the concerns of a growing number of our citizens. The combination of Brexit, the Covid pandemic and an ideological, right-wing Government has created a toxic mix that is putting the future of the UK as a working enterprise at grave risk.

I believe there is a positive case to be made for the United Kingdom, and for the benefits to all its parts of staying together, but it will not be achieved by London-centric English exceptionalism. All the peoples of the UK benefit from both our own achievement in developing the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine and the UK’s ability to secure significant quantities of this and other vaccines and begin the process of distributing them fairly, on a pro rata population basis, to all corners of the kingdom. The resources of the UK have delivered furlough to millions and survival support to businesses to try to get us through the crisis, and that has reached all corners of the UK.

Our security and defence capacity and diplomatic reach across the world may not be appreciated on a day-to-day basis by the average citizen, but they would certainly be missed if they were disrupted by the break- up of the UK. So that is a warning. It is the case, unfortunately, that much of this has been compromised by the Government’s cavalier disregard for international law, the surrender of many of the hard-won advantages and influences we had secured through the EU and the cut to our aid budget—much of it administered, as it happens, from Scotland.

The defeat of President Trump and the election of the new, more constructive and engaging Administration in the United States surely demonstrate that we should not lightly throw away the things we share across the United Kingdom just because we dislike or even despise the current Prime Minister and his self-serving cronies. However, with elections in Scotland and Wales in May, the Government need a desperately urgent reset of their stance towards the devolved Administrations. As has been said, the fact that trade policy and, more pertinently, trade treaties are reserved does not justify excluding Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from having a say in shaping them.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, may be right in saying that the negotiation of these treaties is a reserved matter exclusive to the Executive, and that this amendment is unhelpful, but I say to him very gently that I think he is totally failing to understand the mood that is growing in the devolved Administrations about this approach. If the UK Government could secure more preferential access, for example, for Scotch whisky into India, it would be a cause for rejoicing—but not if at the same time we saw a relaxation of standards for imported beef. So the devolved Administrations would first want to have a positive input into the things they wanted to secure, as well as a protective input and concerns about agreements that might damage significant parts of their interests in the economy. Surely the UK Government should seek to represent the whole of the UK in their approach to trade negotiations and agreements.

So I support the basic aims of this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It is, I believe, weakened by proposed new subsection (5) which, although requiring the UK Government to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations, allows that to be set aside. However, I understand that that has been put in in a spirit of compromise. Personally, I would prefer some form of qualified majority voting, and also a way of testing the interests of English regions. Unless the Government respond to the spirit of this and similar amendments, by engaging much more positively with the devolved Administrations, they will face a constitutional crisis on top of the pandemic and Brexit—a perfect storm.

I say to Ministers that they should recognise that this has been a growing movement since the Brexit scenario has developed and the legislation relating to it has come forward—on agriculture, trade and the internal market. As has been clearly stated, we have tabled and supported a series of amendments seeking to secure the role of the devolved Administrations in the decision-making process. If the Government choose to disregard that, they will only be fuelling the centripetal pressures on the future of the United Kingdom, and I plead with Ministers to recognise that it is not just about the terms of the legislation, it is about the mood, the spirit, the language and the body language of Ministers when they speak to and about the devolved Administrations. Because, right now, that body language is driving support away from the future of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that that is the Government’s intention, but it is the effect of their behaviour and I think they should really reflect on that.

Trade Bill

Lord Morris of Aberavon Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 7th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to speak primarily on Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and other noble Lords. I also support Amendment 32 on the need for consent from devolved Ministers. In my Second Reading speech on the Agriculture Bill, I welcomed the setting up of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, particularly the appointment of the president of the Farmers’ Union of Wales as a member. I played a small part in the founding of the union 65 years ago—rather a long time.

I received an excellent briefing note from the NFU, and I hope that the Minister will give the assurances that it seeks in that note. The establishment of the commission as a statutory board is important and gives it a degree of permanence, and I welcome the thrust of the government amendments. The NFU has raised the issue of the range of necessary expertise required of its members. It is the word “expertise” on which we need further reassurance. I emphasise the obvious point that agricultural expertise is a vital requirement. I need not say anything further on that.

It also raises the issue of ensuring that devolved interests are properly catered for. I hope that the Government will accept Amendment 32. It was around 1 March 1977 when agricultural responsibility in Wales was transferred from the Government, of which I was a Member, to the Secretary of State for Wales. I tried to anticipate how experience in handling agricultural matters outside Whitehall would be important for a future devolved Government in Wales. Regrettably, this important step had to wait until 1999, but this is one example of the building bricks that were necessary to be transferred and that were so important to the future devolved Administration—hence it is vital that they are properly consulted.

When I was the Welsh Secretary, I also ensured that, when Brussels was concerned with Welsh interests, I attended with the Whitehall Minister of Agriculture. I would be particularly pleased to hear more about the scope of work intended for the commission. This should be spelled out before we leave this important issue.

Lastly, I believe that reassurance is needed about the intention of the Government to review the TAC every three years. It is vital to have wide consultations with relevant interests at this stage. This is a very important body. I welcome it and, in particular, its extended remit and degree of permanence. It will be there to give the views of agriculture to the Government of the day. I support the amendment.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I had very much hoped to give three loud cheers to the Government for putting down this amendment but, at the moment, my noble friend has one and a half cheers. But I am extremely grateful to the Government for at least putting down this amendment.

A number of points have been raised, and the point which struck home was that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who said that public expectation is high for the TAC. She is absolutely right. I fear that the TAC, as proposed in the amendments before us, will turn out to be a peely-wally TAC. As a result, it will give the Minister every opportunity to use the proposed new clause in Amendment 36 to repeal it by statutory instrument. That will lead to a huge loss of public confidence in the Government and in agriculture, which has been a matter of so much debate.

We brought the Government to this state, kicking and screaming, through the hard work on the Agriculture Bill. Could my noble friend tell me what membership he envisages for this commission? The point has been made that it is a bit vague, but unless the commission has experts and access to experts, it will not be able to report to the high standard that we hoped and expected of it. Can the commission do work other than looking at trade deals once they have been negotiated? Will there be a lull? If a negotiation is going on, the commission can look at it, and that might bring up other bits of work that it ought to do for future trade deals. But the Government could turn around and say to the commission that because there is no trade deal under negotiation, sorry, your job is finished. Could my noble friend be more specific on the workload he expects of the TAC?

The next point I want to raise was also raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh when she introduced Amendment 7. It is on the wording of the proposed new subsection (2)(4A)(a) in Amendment 34, which refers to “human life or health”. What happens around food security that affects people’s health? Will it be covered by the work of the commission? When we were discussing the Agriculture Bill, the quality of food that would be produced by and imported to this country was a huge concern. It affects human health and, if the TAC is not allowed to look at human health, will aspects of that be omitted?

My last point concerns the shortness of the TAC’s life. Is my noble friend convinced that he will get the right quality of people to serve on it, given that it is an intermittent body, with every likelihood that a Minister could wake up one morning and lay a statutory instrument for its demise? Before a Government decision is made and such a statutory instrument is laid, will my noble friend confirm that he will consult all relevant interested parties and publish their advice? If that is not the case, I fear that the TAC will not produce the quality of reports that we want and will not continue in existence for as long as many noble Lords have anticipated. I hope that my noble friend can change my one and a half cheers into three cheers.

Comprehensive Economic Partnership (EUC Report)

Lord Morris of Aberavon Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I regret that there were technical difficulties when I was called earlier. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith has introduced most persuasively the report of the committee on which I serve as presented to the House. It is one of many that will be presented in due course.

My noble and learned friend has made a major contribution in the way in which he has chaired the committee and mastered the tsunami of paperwork which has passed over our desks. I fear that my expertise in trade matters is limited and I confine myself in my membership of the committee to ensuring that the devolved Governments are properly consulted and that all treaties help support agriculture, on which I have some knowledge.

The proceedings of the committee brought back happy memories of a visit I made many years ago leading a UK mission to Japan to seek inward investment. As an aside, perhaps I may say that I was introduced to the president of the Japanese rugby union, with whom I shared a common interest. He told me that he was an ex-kamikaze pilot. When I queried the “ex”, he said that he was alive and well because he had been ordered back due to engine failure.

The United Kingdom has always been regarded by Japan as a stepping stone to the European Union, particularly for the motor, television and electronic industries. Given that so many parts required for automotive building in the UK flow backwards and forwards between many countries, I am far from sure about what the future holds for existing and further inward investment. I am not optimistic from the noises and the decisions that apparently have already been made.

One of the attractions of the UK for such investment is the quality and flexibility of labour. On my visit to the Japanese Sony plant at Bridgend when I was the Welsh Secretary, I was impressed by the prominence given by the management to the full-time official of the one union on the plant. One union in a plant was a basic requirement of the Japanese, and it worked.

I come to the issue that I wish to emphasise. In our report, we say that the Government in some respects have presented the Japanese deal in a way that is

“overselling the extent of CEPA’s achievements in going beyond JEEPA”.

The International Trade Committee of the other place has noted that the difference between CEPA and JEEPA

“may not be as extensive as claimed”.

I want to ensure that this agreement has not been oversold. That would be a terrible tragedy. Both committees share a common reservation about the Government’s impact assessment and its failure to provide information to enable us to evaluate how well they have done. If proper examinations by both Houses are to be the blueprint for future agreements, I hope that the Minister will note specifically our concern and that of the other place about this matter. It is essential in all these matters that the Department for International Trade provide the assessment of the value of the benefits that CEPA presents above and beyond those conferred by JEEPA as an example for future examination of treaties. That must be a requirement and a blueprint for the future.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Morris of Aberavon Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 2nd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, when I read the Bill and the amendments to it that have been tabled, I asked myself, “Why?” Of course, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay is a very experienced attorney and parliamentarian, but the whole purpose of the CMA is to be independent of government. It is not there to be dictated to because one of the devolved Administrations does not like the look of what the task group is going to be doing. That would be absolutely wrong. The whole basis of the CMA and OIM is that they are independent of government. They publish their results, monitor properly and advise, but the amendment would seem to put in another tier of management, like Europe in reverse. That is very wrong, and it would find no favour with me at all.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 114, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. It is right that we take the opportunity to look at the role and relationship of the Competition and Markets Authority and its relation to the Joint Ministerial Committee.

The single market is important to all of us. Perhaps I may give a practical example of smooth working, which is so essential. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, smooth working will ensure that our products are able to be sold in one part of the country and in any other. Nothing would distort that more than if access to the markets were limited. All my family are sheep farmers. They sell their products, produced in Wales—ram lambs, lambs and ewes—in markets in Carlisle and Exeter on a modest scale. It is important for them to ensure that they have easy access to all markets. That is the kind of practical example that we look at in the functioning of our future relationships.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Morris of Aberavon Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Lastly, on Amendment 59, I cannot believe that we would want to establish in our country the notion that public sector purchasers can, in effect, discriminate against suppliers from other parts of the United Kingdom. That is what the amendment would, in effect, do by taking it out of market access principles.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 1. There is very little that needs to be said in addition to what my noble friend Lady Hayter so clearly set out. In her speech she prayed in aid the Government’s attitude to the Agriculture Bill—which I also took part in—hence the necessity of the amendment. In my innocence, I am assuming that the Government will accept it, but perhaps I am too innocent.

I also support Amendment 2. The purpose of my speech is to serve as a pre-emptive strike to preserve the position of devolved legislatures, as I did in my Second Reading speech. I will make the same point regarding other amendments. Agriculture is a devolved matter. The single market is important throughout the United Kingdom. However, I am wary when power given to devolved Administrations and legislatures is taken away from them. The onus is on Her Majesty’s Government to prove necessity—hence the importance of the words in paragraph (d) in the amendment, which I particularly support.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the first point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who said that this group of amendments and this debate are about whether it is necessary and desirable to agree with the Government on the definition of mutual recognition and non-discrimination. The question is therefore whether the Government have made their case sufficiently that the Bill’s definitions meet the criteria that the White Paper sets out for the functioning of the single market, which is something that we all value.

I think that the Government have made a less than convincing case on the necessity of these definitions. However, even if it were necessary to make a strategic case for defining these market access principles, such a case was not set out in the consultation, the White Paper, the Commons stages or the Minister’s speech on Second Reading. Have the Government explained why they have deviated from our current approach or from the approach we had before we joined the European Union? We had a functioning single market before we joined the EU and while we were members, as we do now, and it has served our country well. Even before devolution, our internal market before we joined the EU allowed for different laws and approaches and historic divergences in many areas, including in economic development, trading standards and other areas linked to the economy. The question is why the Government have decided to move away from the earlier British approach or the British approach as it was adapted and adopted through the European Union.

Before I turn to the matter of definitions, I want to speak to Amendment 59 on procurement. Noble Lords who took part in the early Committee sittings on the Trade Bill will recall that we debated the procurement aspects. I specifically asked why procurement was mentioned in the White Paper but not in this legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has also asked that question, and I hope the Minister will give us a clear answer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated, if procurement continues to be a devolved matter—as it has been, in many respects, under the framework of the European standards and the GPA international agreement—and the Scottish Government, for example, wish to have a procurement policy within an overall framework which sets standards for infrastructure or public buildings used for health or education, every supplier will have to meet those standards. That would not necessarily be discriminating against Scottish, English or Welsh construction firms; it would be a standard that they would be expected to meet. I fear that the Government want to have a uniform standard for the delivery of procurement policy across the United Kingdom. That would be worrying because it would be a significant move away from the flexibility we have had within the approach taken by the European Union.

There has been an assessment of the current approach taken within the EU single market—which we have left—which was updated in April 2020 in Regulation 2019/515. The current approach has a well-defined assessment procedure to be followed by competent authorities when assessing goods, which the Government’s approach lacks. The current approach has obligatory elements to be included in an administrative decision that restricts or denies market access. However, that is left open to UK Ministers to decide in a vacuum, and thus is lacking in the Government’s approach. Our current approach offers a voluntary mutual recognition declaration which businesses can use to demonstrate that their products are lawfully marketed in one EU country in a business-friendly, problem-solving procedure through the European single digital gateway for businesses and service providers on how this operates. These important aspects are missing in the new approach. I think it is therefore justifiable to ask on behalf of businesses across the UK which need to prepare for this, why the Government are not ready.

As will become clear in the debates on following groups, the Government are not ready for the implementation of this because the framework relationships are not yet in place. But even if they were, the Government have also failed to state why the nature and scope of the application of these market access principles are different from what we have understood and worked with for many years. For example, as Professor Nicola McEwen of Edinburgh University pointed out, the definition of indirect discrimination is not the same and is now more complicated than EU law. Not only that, Professor McEwen highlighted the circumstances in which mutual recognition rather than the non-discrimination rule will apply, or vice versa, which is different from the position under EU law. It is unclear how certain types of trading rules would be classified. She gives an interesting example of restrictions on the use rather than the sale or marketing of a product, such as the current ban on the use of electric shock training collars in Wales. There is no consistency in the Government’s approach on that. In further groups of amendments we will also need to explore why the range of exclusions and exceptions from the mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles is significantly narrower than under EU law.

The Government should tell us why the UK’s new approach is far more restrictive and more bureaucratic than the position we are moving away from. With a more restrictive approach, and without the previous flexibility that had been obvious in some areas, businesses, service providers and public authorities will have a much more burdensome single market to operate. The Government have presented no justification whatever for that. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness raised this issue at Second Reading. In a reply, the Minister said why the Government are taking a different approach:

“The market access principles have been designed to take account of the UK’s unique circumstances, reflecting that our market consists of four highly integrated, highly aligned parts. Conversely, EU provisions deal with 27 countries, all with diverse histories, cultures, and competing marketing priorities”.


I note that the Government do not think that our nations have a diverse history and culture, but they most definitely do. If they did not, we would not have had devolution in the first place. However, it does not follow that our current approach, even with devolution, has been more streamlined, and the Government seek to have a more complicated approach going forward.

My noble and learned friend asked about subsidiarity and proportionality, and the Minister replied as follows, which is interesting, given the very well-argued speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He said:

“Turning to your comment on subsidiarity and proportionality, we have now left the EU and are free to organise our internal market in a way that is better suited to the UK’s unique constitutional arrangements and common law system.”


The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, stated categorically that these approaches of subsidiarity and proportionality are deeply embedded in our constitutional arrangements, so why have the Government chosen to move away from them? I fail to understand why they are even changing their position from that of the frameworks agreement that had been in place. Regarding the principles agreed among all the nations, the second paragraph of the agreement on common frameworks states:

“Frameworks will respect the devolution settlements and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures, and will therefore”—


this is the second bullet point—

“maintain, as a minimum, equivalent flexibility for tailoring policies to the specific needs of each territory, as is afforded by current EU rules”.

So the Government agreed with the devolved nations that the current flexibilities and approach afforded by current EU rules would continue to apply, but this Bill argues that they will not. Given that this has implications for Scotland’s decision on minimum unit pricing or for a live case of the deposit return scheme that has been put in place, there are considerable concerns about why the Government have opted not to include environmental objectives in these restrictions.

I will close with another point on the environmental side. Can the Minister clarify the position on the relevant requirements for environmental aspects, which were formulated before this Bill but have yet to come into force? The Scottish deposit return scheme, which has been legislated for but is due to come into force in 2022, would, on my reading, come within the scope of this legislation. It has been made but is not yet in force. That legislation was fully compliant with the European approach because of the environmental objectives. Is it the Government’s intention that the Scottish deposit return scheme regulations will now be within the scope of this Bill? If not, this is just one example of why there are real difficulties with the Government not following the common-sense approach. The UK operated a single market before joining the EU and during its membership of the EU, and indeed our approach allowed for devolution to be accommodated within it. Why are the Government putting that at risk with their approach to these market principles, which are more restrictive, less certain, more bureaucratic and less clear? Why are they not seeking continuity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register as this is the first time I have had the honour of speaking in Committee. Amendment 4 introduces an expanded purpose for the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has explained the rationale for his wide-ranging proposal. I can understand his wish to refer to services at this introductory point in the Bill, given that they comprise over 80% of GDP, and to professional and other qualifications, harmony on which is so important to the UK’s single market.

I accept that the changes to subsections (1) and (2) merit consideration. However, I am very uneasy about the proposed new subsections (3) and (4). I fear that they make this a wrecking clause. They give the devolved Administrations a veto over the way internal market arrangements will work, in addition to the substantial powers and money that they have already been given in the various devolution settlements and EU exit Bills. This is a recipe for the politics of national resentment, chaos and delay, at a time when we need rapid agreement on the new order so that the country can move forward and make the EU exit work, difficult though this may be.

Resources are already massively redistributed out of London and the south-east to other parts of the UK, with Scotland alone having a fiscal deficit of £15 billion—namely, a subsidy from richer England—according to a recent article by David Gauke, who served in the Treasury for seven years. We do not want yet another stand-off at this moment in time with the devolved nations, able to hold things up. There has been quite enough of such delay in the exit negotiation process, now more than four years long, I remind noble Lords.

Where I have more sympathy with the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Purvis of Tweed, is on the fact that we need clarity now, before the Bill takes effect. Perhaps I can explain why by way of analogy.

When I was at Tesco, one of the key reasons for success was a clear understanding of who had responsibility for what and a readiness to accept the rules for the greater good. Procurement was done centrally by buyers, who could work with the supply chain, such as British food producers, understand their needs, strengths and innovations, agree a reasonable deal and ship goods to the stores in line with customer demand. When it came to other areas, such as who to hire as employees and how to schedule their hours, that was locally determined. The key was that everyone knew and accepted the division of labour because it contributed to the success of the whole. There was no council where everyone could waste hour after hour arguing the toss, as appears to be proposed in this amendment.

Let us have clear divisions and let us decide them now, not leave them for a great fight over a memorandum of understanding or yet more devolved government bodies backed up by dispute resolution. That is just an invitation to politically motivated folk to stop the country adjusting to the new norms and getting ahead with economic recovery and international ambition.

The proposals in the Bill are a good start, and, as noble Lords can see, I am uneasy about this particular amendment. I served for nearly three years as the single market Minister in the EU and for years as a British official negotiating in Brussels and Luxembourg, and the truth is that, subject to some minor subsidiarity, internal market rules for goods were set at the EU level in the interests of the efficient functioning of the market. By analogy, rules for the UK single market should be set at the UK level. EU services were less streamlined, but we all recognised that and wanted to bring about improvement, which was one of the main objectives of the UK presidency in 2017, but that never happened. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister, but I will take a lot of convincing that subsections (3) and (4) make sense.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I fear I must disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I support this amendment. The House will be aware of my approach as a devolutionist, and I will not repeat my general views. However, for my part, the key is subsections (3) and (4) of Amendment 4 on what should be contained in a very necessary and vital memorandum of understanding.

At Second Reading, I raised the divergence in understanding between the Welsh Government and Whitehall. The Welsh Government spelled out that they were losers from the Bill—their powers would be changed. There were two particular differences in understanding between HMG and the Welsh Government. First, they said that the Bill takes powers to spend money over the heads of devolved Ministers on devolved matters; and, secondly, that the Bill amends the Government of Wales Act to add the decision on and operation of state aid policy to the list of reserved powers. In the factual briefing on the Bill, the Government actually claim that they are increasing the powers of the devolved legislatures. Indeed, in the discussion on the previous amendment, the Minister claimed again that new powers were being given to the devolved legislatures. They cannot both be right. A recent meeting of Peers with the Welsh Secretary failed miserably to clarify the position. I now specifically ask for the Government to publish a reply to the Welsh Government’s document on their concerns about the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

It has been a most interesting debate. I do not think I have anything to add. I await the Minister’s reply with great interest.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the concept of common frameworks is notable for its absence from this Bill, as many noble Lords have said. For three years, they have been accepted as the way forward, on which the future operation of the UK internal market would be built. Now, they have been silenced.

I, along with a number of other noble Lords who have spoken on this and previous groups, am a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I can report that common frameworks are alive and well and that a great deal of work has gone into them. There is general agreement from stakeholders, the devolved assemblies and UK Government representatives that they can provide a sensible and effective way forward. Amendment 6 seeks to flesh out the principles of co-operation on which they should work. That common frameworks process should be exhausted before the market access principles come into place.

The Government respond by saying that there is no need for common frameworks, as a concept, to be enshrined in legislation. I am sceptical. There are already signs that the Government are attempting to sidestep common frameworks—for instance, on the emissions trading scheme, where they have announced their intention to consider replacing it with a carbon tax, which would be a UK responsibility and would effectively take away the devolved powers. That is despite the fact that the common framework on this issue—emissions trading—has just about got to the final point. Despite the Minister’s assurances, I fear that the Government are poised to put the principles in the Bill into effect with the excuse that common frameworks have not proved workable.

Amendment 6 has cross-party support. Noble Lords have emphasised that it has been designed in consideration with the Welsh Government and reflects the well-founded concerns of the devolved assemblies. As with a number of issues, there is a lack of clarity on how common frameworks will link with the market access principles. Common frameworks set up a system—a framework—for the operation of markets, complete with dispute mechanisms. They allow for changing standards over time. So, I ask the Minister: how does this fit in with the provisions in the Bill that remove the right of devolved Administrations to introduce new standards in many circumstances? If the Government genuinely support common frameworks as the fundamental building blocks of the way forward, will the Minister agree to accept Amendment 6, which states that the Bill’s market access principles apply only after the common frameworks process has been exhausted? Will she clarify the relationship of the Bill to common frameworks? Will she accept our assurances that the Welsh Government, for instance, want common frameworks in the Bill?

Will the Minister also explain precisely how the measures in the Bill will guarantee that the devolved Administrations will be able to experiment and develop novel approaches, as they have in the past? That is how a great deal of social and environmental progress has been made in the last two decades. I give the example, used earlier in the debate, of single-use plastic bags. Wales experimented with the concept of paying for single-use plastic bags and was dramatically successful in reducing their use. The English approach to this, taken by the UK Parliament, was very sceptical, but Parliament saw that it worked and, in due course, England followed suit. Wales is an ideal size as an experimental sounding board.

Amendment 44 to Clause 9 refers to the non-discrimination principle. For clarity, can the Minister spell out to us where the requirement for the provision of, for example, labelling in the Welsh language would stand in relation to that principle? There is a legitimate reason for the need for Welsh labelling in certain circumstances, and as policy in relation to the Welsh language matures, it is fairly certain that there will be increasing demand and need for labelling in the Welsh language. How will that fit with the Bill?

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Morris of Aberavon Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as the Attorney-General, I had a duty to advise Ministers of their legal obligations. This was not always straightforward, and I am particularly aware of how I strove to achieve and advise compliance with the law, particularly in Kosovo and the rules of engagement in Sierra Leone. Parliament and Ministers accepted my advice, though as a leading counsel I had to defend the United Kingdom before the international court in The Hague.

As the greatly admired Lord Bingham wrote in his book The Rule of Law:

“The rule of law requires compliance by the state with … international law”


and national law. Ministers, civil servants and our Armed Forces are bound by the need to observe international law. The rule of law is not negotiable; to defer breaches does not alter the fact that Parliament is being asked now to legislate in breach of its obligations. It is similar to blessing a potential burglar or murderer for any future wrongdoing.

We have already lost one esteemed and distinguished law officer. Is it not the time that we have a clear statement on where they stand from the Lord Chancellor, who has a statutory duty to maintain the rule of law, as well as the remaining law officers, who are clinging to office?

I turn now to devolution legislation. As one of the architects of Welsh devolution, which I began as a graduate student in Cambridge in 1953 and culminated in 1999, I regard it as my duty to safeguard the settlement. Once powers are devolved, they cannot be withdrawn. The Bill drives a coach and four horses through the devolved settlement. The Welsh Government tell me that the United Kingdom Governments have worked collaboratively on the common parliamentary programme for three years; this Bill neuters it and hollows out the powers of the devolved legislatures to regulate policy areas. There is no time to give examples. In the memorandum from the Welsh Parliament, it spells out its grievances.

I will make two points. First, the Bill contains, for the first time, powers for the UK Government to spend money over the heads of devolved Ministers—[Inaudible.] I ask the Minister to confirm whether that interpretation by the Welsh Government is right. Secondly, the Bill seeks explicitly to amend the Government of Wales Act to add the design and operation of state aid policy to the list of reserved powers. Again, examples have been given. Could we have a statement on that issue and on whether the Welsh Government are right? Again, I would like the Minister to confirm what the position is.

The brief for the Bill states that the devolved Administrations will see their powers increase significantly following the transition period and the transfer of EU powers, and will be able to use new and existing powers within the internal market system. Who is right: the Welsh Government or the Minister, as he set out in his speech? Is that factual brief correct?

I will ask one further question: is it the Government’s wish and intention to go back on the settlement of devolution over 20 years, or is the Bill an inadvertence that will undermine the unity of the United Kingdom? Is that what they want?

Trade and Agriculture Commission and Trade Remedies Authority

Lord Morris of Aberavon Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that the TAC has a fixed term, as set out in its terms of reference. Members of the commission accept their appointments on that basis and, I am sure, feel satisfied that there is sufficient time. At the end of the TAC’s term, it will submit its advisory report, which will be presented to Parliament by the Department for International Trade at that time.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome with pleasure the appointment of the president of the Farmers Union of Wales—a union I worked for as a legal adviser when I was a young man—to the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Specifically, what are the objections to extending the period of the commission’s remit, and when will it publish its reports?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, the commission has a specific task: to provide strategic advice to the Government and write a report on a particular area. As I said previously, it will produce its report at the end of its six-month term and that report will be presented to Parliament. I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord’s acknowledgement of the quality of at least some of the commission’s members.