Vol. 808 Wednesday No. 150 25 November 2020

PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDEROFBUSINESS

Questions Covid-19: Vaccines and Medical Equipment...... 233 Wales: Customs Sites...... 236 Nuclear Weapons...... 239 Covid-19: Vaccination Prioritisation ...... 243 International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 Private Notice Question ...... 246 DHSC Answers to Written Questions Commons Urgent Question...... 251 Leaseholders and Cladding Commons Urgent Question...... 255 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill Report (3rd Day)...... 258 Sport Sector: Financial Support Statement...... 348

Grand Committee Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Considered in Grand Committee...... GC 1 Coronavirus Act 2020 (Expiry of Mental Health Provisions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 Considered in Grand Committee...... GC 8 European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Regulations 2020 Considered in Grand Committee...... GC 24 Business and Planning Act 2020 (London Spatial Development Strategy) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 Considered in Grand Committee ...... GC 34 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2020-11-25

In Hybrid sittings, [V] after a Member’s name indicates that they contributed by video call.

The following abbreviations are used to show a Member’s party affiliation: Abbreviation Party/Group CB Cross Bench Con Conservative DUP Democratic Unionist Party GP Green Party Ind Lab Independent Labour Ind LD Independent Liberal Democrat Ind SD Independent Social Democrat Ind UU Independent Ulster Unionist Lab Labour Lab Co-op Labour and Co-operative Party LD Liberal Democrat LD Ind Liberal Democrat Independent Non-afl Non-affiliated PC Plaid Cymru UKIP UK Independence Party UUP Ulster Unionist Party

No party affiliation is given for Members serving the House in a formal capacity, the Lords spiritual, Members on leave of absence or Members who are otherwise disqualified from sitting in the House. © Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2020, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 233 Arrangement of Business [25 NOVEMBER 2020] Covid-19: Vaccines 234

House of Lords scheme is an emphatically impactful scheme. Britain has taken a leadership role in it, and I thank all those Wednesday 25 November 2020 involved in its development. The House met in a hybrid proceeding. Lord Mendelsohn (Lab) [V]: My Lords, it is essential Noon that those at economic and social disadvantage be given proper access to a functioning distribution strategy. Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans. Can the Minister reassure the 200,000 people with blood cancer in the “extremely vulnerable”classification that they can rely on proper evaluation of the suitability Arrangement of Business of vaccines, treatments and equipment for their distinctive Announcement condition, and provide some insight into how construction of the prioritisation list will be undertaken to address 12.07 pm the acute problem those in such circumstances face? In The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler): My Lords, the this regard, would the Minister be prepared to meet Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some with representatives of Blood Cancer UK to take Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social these matters forward? distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will Lord Bethell (Con): The noble Lord raises an important now commence. Please can those asking supplementary point about those with blood cancer. In fact, many questions keep them sensibly short and confined to who are in the “extremely vulnerable” group have just two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers also conditions that may or may not be affected by the be brief. vaccine. Weare working extremely hard to accommodate their particular needs. The JCVI has an extremely Covid-19: Vaccines and Medical thoughtful prioritisation process. I would be happy to Equipment meet the group the noble Lord describes. Question Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP): I warmly welcome 12.08 pm the agreement that was reached yesterday between Her Majesty’s Government and the three devolved Asked by Baroness Goudie Governments on Christmas household arrangements. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps That is a good example of working together across the they are taking to ensure equitable access (1) to United Kingdom. I press the Government to continue vaccines, and (2) to medical equipment, to address that approach with the rollout of vaccines across the the Covid-19 pandemic. United Kingdom. Nothing would be worse than to have one area or region ahead of another when it TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department comes to vaccinating clinical staff, care workers and of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con): My vulnerable people. Lords, the UK is at the forefront of efforts to drive global collaboration on the development of new vaccines Lord Bethell (Con): I entirely endorse the sentiment and has committed to procuring a Covid-19 vaccine the noble Lord expresses. I offer my profound thanks for the UK, the Crown dependencies and the overseas to the devolved authorities for the immense spirit of territories.Wearecollaboratingwithinternationalpartners collaboration which has characterised the response to on vaccine development, manufacturing scale-up and the pandemic. Often, it would seem from the headlines future distribution. The NHS has allocated and assigned that the nations are at odds with each other; that is not more than 28,000 items of critical care equipment my experience. The Christmas negotiations he cites acrosstheUKandCrowndependenciesandtheremainder are a very good example of that, and I hope the is available for allocation across England according to vaccination arrangements will be the finest moment. NHS regions, based on future need. Lord Scriven (LD): My Lords, on 25 September the Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]: My Lords, equitable JCVI reported the serious risk of disease and mortality access to vaccines has a number of dimensions and all from Covid according to deprivation and ethnicity. must be secured across the world and in the UK. The These issues have to be taken into consideration in the Covid-19 pandemic respects no lines: if we neglect the vaccination programme, so why does the present list of developing world, we neglect ourselves. A lack of priorities for the vaccine ignore those factors completely? global access will hamper global health and development. Inequitable access would impede the unity of the Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, the noble Lord is United Kingdom. entirely right that deprivation and ethnicity are key considerations in the morbidity of Covid; we are all Lord Bethell (Con): The UK has pledged more than acutely aware of them. The JCVI has looked extremely £1 billion in aid to counter health, humanitarian and closely at a variety of different models for prioritising economic risks,including £829 million on the development vaccination. Prioritisation based largely on age gives and delivery of vaccines. I thank all those involved in the most accurate and thoughtful prioritisation of the the COVAX Facility, a multinational mechanism vaccine and is also simple to understand and deliver. administered by Gavi which pools funding. The COVAX That is why it has gone down that route. 235 Covid-19: Vaccines [LORDS] Wales: Customs Sites 236

Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]: My Lords, I congratulate partners, including the United States, on issues such as AstraZeneca and Oxford University on their triumph the vaccine. We are grateful to Gavi, which is doing a in developing this vaccine. I hope that my noble friend terrific job at buying the vaccine; it is being characterised agrees that without the exceptional input from the by what I would term commercial savviness.The spending private sector, this game-changing treatment simply review implications for ODA have yet to be published could not have been developed. What plans do the fully, but I reassure the noble Lord that funding the Government have to cope with the anti-vaxxers? Some global response to the pandemic and the equitable of them will simply be individuals exercising their distribution of vaccines, in particular, remains a massive right to say no, but others will be deliberately spreading commitment for the Government. lies and misinformation that can only undermine trust in the vaccine. Do the Government have any specific Baroness Sheehan (LD): My Lords, notwithstanding plans to deal with this challenge? the good use of UK aid via the WHO’s COVAX initiative, evidence shows that treatment providers and Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, we have extremely Governments have had to grapple with intellectual detailed and energetic plans to deal with misinformation, property barriers to essential products such as therapeutics, which is based on confusion, and disinformation, which respirators and reagents for test kits. Do the Government is based on malice. It would not be right for me to go maintain the position they held at the WTO TRIPS through those plans in detail at the Dispatch Box, but council meeting of 16 October that IP barriers to the I reassure my noble friend that they are in place and Covid-19 response are hypothetical and will not stand are being characterised by a degree of consideration in the way of scaling up vaccine manufacture? for those who have concerns about the vaccine. It is a grave undertaking to have an injection such as that. Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, the question of People naturally have searching questions they would vaccine intellectual property is a delicate one because, like to ask, and we are trying to meet those questions as was mentioned earlier, we rely on the private sector with a degree of thoughtfulness and to answer them in for a lot of funding and research, and for supplying the spirit in which they are asked. the research. So, we are respectful of intellectual property as a principle. None the less, we are also grateful to Lord Patel (CB) [V]: My Lords, my question follows vaccine manufacturers that have taken an open-source on well from the previous one. The development of approach to vaccine intellectual property and have highly effective vaccines against Covid-19 is a remarkable made local manufacturing available, so that there can scientific advance. It is crucial that the public have be an extremely wide distribution of vaccines, including absolute confidence and trust in their use, which they to those in the developing world who would otherwise should. This will be reinforced when the scientifically-led struggle. process of market approval by the regulator and scrutiny by the wider science community is completed, following The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler): My Lords, the publication of the peer-reviewed data. Can the Minister time allowed for this Question has elapsed. assure the House that there will be no political interference in any way to speed up that process before the vaccines are made available to the wider public? Wales: Customs Sites Question Lord Bethell (Con): I thank the noble Lord for the opportunity to make this crystal clear: the MHRA is 12.19 pm an independent regulator, its work on vaccine approval Asked by Baroness Humphreys has no political interference whatever and there is no pressure on either time or outcome. I pay tribute to To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress those at the MHRA, who are extremely dedicated to they have made in (1) finding potential, and (2) the cause. We are going to approach the entire process establishing new, lorry customs sites that are close with a spirit of transparency for exactly the reasons to ports, in particular Holyhead, and near strategic the noble Lord identified. Public trust is essential, and road networks in Wales, before 31 December. the only way we can gain the public’s trust is by being open and honest about how we go about these approvals. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury That is the way we will pursue the process. (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con): My Lords, for January 2021, HMRC decided that Warrington and Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): My Lords, on Birmingham inland border facilities will provide interim COVAX, which the noble Lord mentioned, has there transit facilities for goods requiring inspection through been any contact with the new US Administration to Holyhead. Holyhead will also have a limited facility encourage its participation? Will the UK use its position for ATA Carnets. Neither Birmingham nor Warrington within Gavi to ensure that the facility pays no more is near capacity; they are on the strategic road network than cost price for future doses of Covid vaccines? for traffic using the mainland as a land bridge. For What assessment has the noble Lord made of the July 2021, an enduring site has been identified, and we impact of the further and substantial cut to ODA, are moving towards completion as quickly as possible. after the £2.9 billion reduction earlier this year, on our global response to the pandemic? Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]: Given that we now know that the border in the Irish Sea will be moved Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, our forthcoming temporarily from Holyhead to Warrington and chairmanship of the G7, at the beginning of next year, Birmingham, in a move described by an industry is giving us a good opportunity to engage with our expert as a recipe for smuggling, and, given that Holyhead 237 Wales: Customs Sites [25 NOVEMBER 2020] Wales: Customs Sites 238 has been described as a “soft spot”for people trafficking, put forward to him. So we are working very closely how will the movement of goods and people be monitored with the devolved authorities, and, as I say, with Wales on the 100-mile journey to Warrington, or on the in particular I have had a very constructive relationship. 175-mile journey to Birmingham, for their customs checks? Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]: Yesterday the French border control started trialling new controls, and Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con): My Lords, we absolutely immediately a five-mile lorry queue built up on the accept that Warrington and Birmingham will be interim M20. If lorries to Holyhead have to travel via Warrington solutions to the challenge of having these facilities or Birmingham, how much longer do the Government much nearer to Holyhead, and we are working at pace believe the additional journey is likely to take, and to deliver that. what estimate have they made of the percentage increase in food costs as a result? Baroness Altmann (Con): My Lords, does my noble friend share my disappointment that it has not been Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con): My Lords, if 100% of possible to find a site local to Holyhead for customs the Holyhead traffic had to go to Birmingham, it checks, which clearly will be needed when shipments would take up 40% of Birmingham’s capacity. If it come in from the Republic of Ireland and could create had to go 100% to Warrington, it would take up jobs and boost the economy on Anglesey and the 20% of its capacity. So we are very unlikely to see any surrounding areas? congestion at those two interim inland ports. In terms of distance delay, the Warrington site is located for Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con): I am pleased to tell those trucks going to the eastern ports and the my noble friend that yesterday we agreed verbal heads Birmingham site is located for those going to the of terms for a site on the island of Anglesey. It is not a short-straits ports, so we do not anticipate delay or done deal by any means, but I am confident that we cost in relation to that. will do that deal, and that it will give the answers that Lord Wigley (PC) [V]: My Lords, I am sure the my noble friend is asking for. Minister accepts that Warrington is totally inappropriate, and I am glad that a location has been found on Lord Loomba (CB) [V]: My Lords, uncertainty about Anglesey and hope that it moves forward very quickly. how Holyhead as a major gateway out of the European But perhaps I may press the Minister on another Union will operate raises concerns about jobs and question. As I understand it, the digital infrastructure livelihoods for local people. Can the Minister say if for border checks at Holyhead from 1 January still has the levelling-up agenda applies to Wales, too, or is it not been fully tested, and, if things go wrong, it will just for Northern Ireland? Does he agree that this is an have massive implications for the flow of trade and for opportunity to help the local economy and Wales as a local congestion. What urgent measures are being whole by ensuring that customs checks are carried out taken to deal with that scenario? on the island, as well as alleviating security concerns inherent in checks done as far away as Warrington and Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con): My Lords, I can Birmingham? reassure the noble Lord that we are on track to have the digital infrastructure up and running by 1 January. Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con): I agree with the noble I completely accept that we are running on a very tight Lord, which is why we have made the decision to move timetable, but if we take, for example, the GVMS at pace to acquire the site on the island of Anglesey. system—which I think is the one that he is referring That will bring jobs to the island and will ensure that to—that has been available for testing by hauliers and security checks are as close to the port as possible. carriers since September and will be released to all hauliers on 8 December. Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]: My Lords, at all stages of the Brexit process we have urged the Government Lord German (LD): Putting aside the issue of having to formalise their engagement with the devolved to drive 100 miles or 175 miles in order to have your Administrations, for example by putting the Joint load checked, meaning that you have to go to one of Ministerial Committee on a statutory footing. Ministers two places, I am interested to know the Minister’s said that this was unnecessary,yet the Welsh Government answer to the question that was put to him earlier say that Whitehall made a formal approach regarding about working at pace. Am I right to understand that an inland site to serve Holyhead only in August. Why the first communication on the siting of a potential do the Government find it so hard to work constructively site on the Isle of Anglesey was yesterday; and, if so, is and proactively with others? Does it stem from the that what the Government call working at pace? Prime Minister’s recent and very damaging comments on devolution? Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con): I can reassure the noble Lord that we have been working on this solution Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con): My Lords, I want to for some time. There was an alternative proposal reassure the noble Lord that we have had extremely several months ago that most people were in favour of, collaborative and constructive discussions with the which was RAF Mona, but unfortunately that was not Welsh Administration; indeed, it was only yesterday acceptable to the local community. But, no, we have that I agreed with the Welsh Minister to go for the site not just started work on this this week. In terms of the for which we agreed the verbal heads of terms yesterday. inland sites, to reassure the noble Lord, not every lorry I gave that choice to the Welsh Minister and I was has to go to them. About 2% of loads will be diverted delighted when he agreed with the proposal that we for formal checks. So, although I accept that in the 239 Wales: Customs Sites [LORDS] Nuclear Weapons 240

[LORD AGNEW OF OULTON] The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness interim, before the enduring site is created on the Goldie) (Con): My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government island, there will be some inconvenience, it will be only keep their nuclear deterrents policy and posture under for a very small number of loads. continual review, taking into consideration their commitments to maintaining the United Kingdom’s The Earl of Clancarty (CB): My Lords, following nuclear deterrent for as long as the global security on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord situation demands, and to the long-term goal of a Wigley, concerns were raised this month about the world without nuclear weapons. readiness of IT systems, including the Customs Declaration Service, in oral evidence to the EU Select Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD) [V]: My Committee’s EU Goods Sub-Committee. Is it the case Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. There is that key personnel for developing the CDS are still common ground with the Treaty on the Prohibition of being recruited? Does the Minister agree that, the rest Nuclear Weapons because that is the shorter term of the UK aside, the particular problems facing Wales goal, too. However, with the collapse of so many will be compounded if IT systems are not ready on time? non-proliferation treaties and the failure of the 2015 Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con): My Lords, the CDS is round of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to reach the system that is being rolled out specifically for a consensus, is the Minister confident that the next Northern Ireland from 1 January, because that is the round of the non-proliferation treaty, which must take one that enables a dual-tariff mechanism. The place before April, will reach some consensus as a way development is well under way. We have one or two forward? The 122 countries that signed the Treaty on more upgrades to make to it, with the last one on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons are desperate 21 December. I am not going to pretend that that is that nuclear weapons states are not making sufficient not tight, but the development is moving at pace, and efforts to fulfil their obligations under pillar 3. What the most recent upgrade enabled the dual-tariff operating dialogues have the Government had to date on achieving model to work. The CSPs—the community service a consensus and success at the next round of the NPT? providers that provide the link into the CDS for traders and hauliers—are working at pace. The main one, the Baroness Goldie (Con): The Government remain Trader Support Service, is working at particular pace, constantly engaged. There is probably a fundamental and I am confident that the system will be connected difference of philosophy between an attitude towards by the due date. a non-proliferation treaty and an attitude towards a prohibition treaty. Certainly, the Government believe Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]: My that the non-proliferation treaty has been successful Lords, further to the questions from the noble Lord, because it is built on foundations of consensus and Lord Wigley, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the delivers tangible benefits for all its signatories.It continues head of Stena Line’s head of UK Port Authorities told to make a significant contribution to international the BBC yesterday that it was preparing for no deal security and stability, and that is what this Government and was confident that it was in the right place for want to promote and support. that. As far as I am aware, the Government are still looking for a deal. That means that big companies The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, recently I such as Stena, and also small companies, will have to and a number of other Bishops issued a public letter deal with the uncertainty, with 36 days to go. What welcoming the important ratification of the UN Treaty help is being provided to enable small independent on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Can the businesses, in particular, to interact with that extremely Minister comment on the moral inconsistency, whereby late-arriving IT system? we have rightly taken a stand on outlawing cluster Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con): My Lords, the difference bombs and landmines but not outlawing nuclear weapons, for the vast majority of traders between a deal and no which, as we know, are far more destructive when they deal is simply the level of tariffs that will have to are used? be put into the HMRC and DIT systems. So their readiness needs to be at the same level, whether it is a Baroness Goldie (Con): At the heart of the question deal or no deal. asked by the right reverend Prelate is the relevance of the term “deterrent”. Very often people measure the The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler): My Lords, the deterrent a failure because it has not been used. I time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now would argue the exact opposite—that the measure of move to the third Oral Question. a deterrent’s success is that it has not been used, because it is doing its job of deterring. Nuclear Weapons Question Lord Trefgarne (Con): Can the Minister confirm the Government’s continued adherence to a policy of 12.29 pm continuous at sea deterrents—namely,one of our Trident Asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer submarines, permanently on patrol and ready to reply, To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to should our supreme national interest so require? the ratification by 50 countries of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Baroness Goldie (Con): Yes, I can confirm to my what plans they have to review their policies towards noble friend our commitment to the continuous at sea nuclear weapons. deterrent. When the Prime Minister launched the 241 Nuclear Weapons [25 NOVEMBER 2020] Nuclear Weapons 242 integrated review, he specifically reaffirmed the UK’s Lord Bates (Con): On 24 January 2021, it will be commitment to that deterrent and the UK’s support 75 years since the General Assembly of the United of NATO. Nations first pledged to rid the world of nuclear weapons, while meeting at Central Hall, Westminster. Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]: My Lords, bearing in Is my noble friend aware that many of us who have mind how much the cost of the nuclear deterrent has argued vigorously against unilateral nuclear disarmament destabilised the defence budget, have HMG considered feel passionately about the need for greater progress in relieving it of this cost as part of the welcome recent multilateral disarmament? I welcome the UK’sleadership addition to the resources allocated to defence and in reducing our nuclear stockpile. Will the Government security? use the upcoming 75th anniversary to urge other nuclear states to follow suit? Baroness Goldie (Con): I would respond to the noble Lord by observing that the Government recognise Baroness Goldie (Con): As always, my noble friend that the cost of maintaining and renewing the deterrent makes an interesting and informed contribution. He is substantial. Equally, the Government are clear that underlines my earlier point about why we have the the safety and security of the United Kingdom is a deterrent and what the test of a successful deterrent is. long-term issue and immediate economic pressures I assure him that the United Kingdom Government are not sufficient rationale for taking risks with the support multilateral nuclear disarmament, but we believe security of the nation and British public far into the that the non-proliferation treaty is the most effective future. The costs have been and will continue to be means of progressing that objective. subjected to cross-government scrutiny,but the underlying rationale for the deterrent is the safety of the country Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]: We welcome the long overdue and its citizens. commitment on defence spending announced last week but, according to the National Audit Office, poor Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]: I refer noble Lords to management of Britain’s nuclear weapons programme my interests as reported in the register, as chair of the has led to infrastructure projects being delayed by six Nuclear Education Trust. As the noble Baroness, years and costs increasing by £1.3 billion. Can the Lady Miller, said, the TPNW comes into effect on Minister say how much of the £16 billion increase in 22 January 2021. The list of prohibitions includes use, spending will be used to complete the nuclear programme stockpiling, testing, production, manufacture, stationing upgrades? and installation of nuclear weapons. In that context, can the Minister tell us what current government Baroness Goldie (Con): I cannot attach specific thinking is about the possibility of defence diversification sums of money to the particular components to which to provide alternative good-quality jobs for those currently the noble Lord refers. He will understand the engaged in the process of replacing the existing nuclear Government’s commitment to the Dreadnought arsenal? We know that science and industry can respond programme, an extensive, ambitious and challenging very quickly when necessary, as we have seen during programme. We remain on track to deliver the first of the Covid pandemic. class into service in the early 2030s, which we will do within the costs envelope announced in the Baroness Goldie (Con): I simply observe that the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and commitment to the deterrent is very significant in Security Review 2015. That estimated the cost to be terms of defence capability, planning and cost, and is £31 billion and set aside a £10 billion contingency a long-term commitment. We deploy our best scientific fund. and technical skills to that programme, and there is no proposal to distract from that activity. Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]: Which makes for better policy, and why, when there are force expansions by Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]: My Lords, adversaries in capability, capacity, doctrine and battle- the Minister suggested that there is probably a different readiness: on the one hand, reinforcing our seat on the philosophy between those who believe in a non- Security Council, NATO leverage and special relationship proliferation regime and those who believe in a prohibition status, or, on the other, recognising our new status as a regime.Can she tell the House what work the Government lesser-tier country but with a strategy of balancing the are doing to take us down the nuclear ladder and extent of the threat with nuclear disarmament and reduce the amount of nuclear capabilities, because adopting more of a practical focus on IT capabilities surely the aim we all have is a multilateral solution to and retaining 0.7% as our foreign aid contribution? ending nuclear weapons? Baroness Goldie (Con): Responding from the Baroness Goldie (Con): Let me offer some cheer to perspective of defence, I do not accept the premise of the noble Baroness by agreeing with her last point. the noble Viscount’s question. When we are dealing The difficulty lies not so much in the objective, which with threats to security and the safety of our country is shared by many people, but in the journey to reach and our citizens, we go down all routes—security it. That is why the United Kingdom believes that the routes, MoD roots and diplomatic routes—and they non-proliferation treaty not only offers focus but is a are all vital. The recent settlement offered by the treaty entered into by all the nuclear states. I am not Government to the MoD reflects the importance that aware of any nuclear state joining the prohibition we attach to that. treaty. It is entered into because those nuclear states believe that the non-proliferation treaty provides focus The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler): My Lords, the and verification, and that it has a record of delivering. time allowed for this Question has elapsed. 243 Covid-19: Vaccination Prioritisation[LORDS] Covid-19: Vaccination Prioritisation 244

Covid-19: Vaccination Prioritisation The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Question Park) (Con): I ask noble Lords to keep their questions short. 12.41 pm Lord Bethell (Con): I hear loud and clear the Asked by Baroness Campbell of Surbiton conundrum expressed by the noble Lord. These To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans prioritisation questions are very difficult. I hear his they have to ensure that high-risk adults under the plea loud and clear and I undertake that these kinds of age of 65 are prioritised for access to any Covid-19 considerations will be considered in the prioritisation vaccination ahead of adults less at risk who are process. over the age of 65. Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]: What provision is being TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department made for another group who feel totally forgotten by of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con): My this Government—namely,extremely vulnerable children, Lords,theJointCommitteeonVaccinationandImmunisation whether they have medical conditions or physical or has found that mortality increases exponentially with learning disabilities, many of whom have been unable age and has published interim advice accordingly. An to access carers or schools since March? When is the age-based programme captures many with underlying review that the Minister just spoke about likely to conditions. None the less, the sub-committee is reviewing publish its results? evidence on clinical risk factors, including the clinically extremely vulnerable, and the committee will update Lord Bethell (Con): It will not be possible to publish its advice if necessary after review. any results until we have the clear data on the vaccines. Individual vaccines may behave quite differently with Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]: I thank different groups of people. There may be some vaccines the Minister for his Answer. As someone who has been that work well with the elderly, some that work well shielding since early March, I celebrate those involved with those with clinical conditions and some that in producing the vaccines in such a short time. However, work well with children. It is only when we know that I am concerned to learn that those under 65 in the data that the final prioritisation can be published. clinically high-risk categories have been given a lower priority for the vaccine, knowing that 59% of people Lord Young of Cookham (Con): My Lords, on who have died from the coronavirus have been high-risk 12 November I asked my noble friend’s ministerial disabled people. Can the Minister please provide the colleague, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, if he JCVI’sevidence that informed the Government’sdecision would recommend to the JCVI that rough sleepers that those in high-risk categories under 65 are less and those who work with them should be a priority for vulnerable to the virus? Disabled people tell me that vaccination. He said he would. Does that remain the they have not felt shielded or protected throughout case, and will they indeed get priority? this pandemic, and this priority decision seems to confirm that belief. I urge the Government to think again. Lord Bethell (Con): My noble friend has made the case for rough sleepers extremely well. It is one that we Lord Bethell (Con): I reassure the noble Baroness are deeply concerned about. When it comes to the that no final decisions have been made; this is only prioritisation list, what has been published so far is an interim advice.I point out in particular that the behaviours interim and indicative list. It will be reviewed, and a of individual vaccines might be quite different for more detailed list will be published in time. different groups of people. It is only when we have the final phase 3 data on the vaccines that we will be able Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]: As the to make the decisions that she alludes to. We are Government keep the priority list under review, will considering the extremely vulnerable carefully. As I they also look at the results of the New York vaccine mentioned, a review is under way to see whether rollout prioritisation? Younger adults who have been clinical factors should play a greater role in prioritisation. shielding are often already on a list, are at high risk and have children at school or college who are also Lord MacKenzie of Culkein (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I their carers. These children are already stressed, if could not agree more with the noble Baroness, they attend education, knowing that they risk being Lady Campbell. Motor neurone disease is an example asymptomatic virus carriers into the home and that of a fatal illness with a very short life expectancy after Covid could kill their parent or sibling. diagnosis. The Minister might well have seen recent publicity about the case of a six year-old child being Lord Bethell (Con): I am extremely grateful to the unable to attend school in case he brings the Covid-19 noble Baroness for suggesting the New York precedent. virus home to his dad, who is living with motor It is not one that I was aware of and I will look into it. neurone disease. I hope the Minister will agree that no I reassure her that we are liaising with all our international family should be in the position of having to choose partners over the vaccine rollout to ensure that we put between their child attending school and the risk of in the best possible practice that we can. shortening the already short lifespan of his father. Will he further agree that people living with motor Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I have read neurone disease, as well as those with many other the JCVI priority list. As the Minister has indicated, life-limiting illnesses, must be on the priority list for some granularity is going to be vital. There is so far no very early vaccination? mention of vulnerable BAME communities, who have 245 Covid-19: Vaccination Prioritisation[25 NOVEMBER 2020] International Development Act 2015 246 borne the disproportionate burden of the pandemic. Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]: My Lords, the Question of How will the Government approach those vulnerabilities the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, shows very clearly in setting the priorities and their implementation? that flexibility will be needed, and I think the Government are hearing that. Now that we have three vaccines, Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords,the underlying principles including the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, how soon of the advice of the JCVI are to reduce mortality, to does the Minister think we will be able to roll out improve population health by reducing serious disease vaccinations at a target of 1 million a day? Will he and to protect the NHS and the social care system. confirm that target? Will that be from January onwards? The basic insight is that the risk of serious disease and In the meantime, the need for rapid mass antigen death from Covid increases exponentially with age lateral flow testing is all the greater. and increases in those with a number of underlying health conditions. Those are the basic principles of the Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, the noble Lord interim advice and they will evolve over time. tempts me to commit to schedules that I am simply not in a position to commit to, I am afraid to say. The Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]: My Lords, performance of the various vaccines is extremely complex: what consideration will be given to the vaccination of each one of them needs a different delivery plan. In up to 250,000 care assistants employed by disabled collaboration with the NHS, we are putting in place an people under the direct payments scheme who are not extremely energetic and thoughtful deployment on the radar of any care providers or local authorities? programme. Those in charge have been instructed to have that ready to start from 1 December, but I will Lord Bethell (Con): The noble Baroness makes the not hide it from the House that it may well be after the case extremely well for care providers. The prioritised new year that the very large numbers begin. I reassure list starts currently with older adult residents in care the House that we are super-focused on this deployment homes and care home workers, but she makes the case plan, and, as soon as the vaccines become available, for the 250,000 who may not be on that principal list. we will be trying to get them to the public as soon as That is something that I will take away with me. we can.

Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl): My Lords, I add my The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler): My Lords, the voice to the plea that those sleeping rough on our time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and that streets are not forgotten when vaccination occurs. I brings us to the end of Question Time. ask the Minister to rule out any government-assisted 12.52 pm moves to stop people who decide, just as they do not want vaccination for flu, that they do not want to be Sitting suspended. vaccinated for Covid from travelling, certainly within the UK. International Development (Official Lord Bethell (Con): I hear loud and clear the case Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 for rough sleepers made by both the noble Baroness Private Notice Question and my noble friend. The case was made to my colleague, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, as well. That is a 1.02 pm really important part of the vaccination programme Asked by Baroness Sheehan and we will look into the most effective way of doing it. On the noble Baroness’s second point, I am not To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans aware of any moves to try to limit or create mandatory they have to amend the International Development situations for vaccines within the four nations. (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con): Might Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): My Lords, I my noble friend consider setting up a network to catch cannot speculate ahead of the Chancellor’s Statement, and bring back into circulation those young people which I believe he is currently giving in another place. technically in care between the ages of 14 and 21 who The Government remain firmly committed to helping have none the less been trafficked out of their unmonitored the world’s poorest people. We are always looking at council care homes, given that the vaccination publicity how the aid budget is spent to ensure that it serves the is so enormous that they might well be able to be UK’s priorities and represents value for money. tempted back into life again? Baroness Sheehan (LD): My Lords, whatever the Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, the vaccination holds outcome of the Chancellor’s statement, the target of the prospect of returning to some form of normality 0.7% of GNI to help the world’s poorest is a proud very quickly. It is exactly the kind of situation that my Lib Dem achievement in coalition, spearheaded in noble friend points out that will be most welcome. your Lordships’ House very ably, if I may say so, by There are a large number of people in various types of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed. It serves care who have not been able to be looked after in the moral, economic and political imperatives. Polling way that they might have been previously.It is extremely shows that it is not the British people pushing for cuts valuable that the vaccine will be able to return people to the aid budget; it is ideologues within the governing to that kinds of support, which they both deserve party and a weak Prime Minister who seems unable to and need. deny them anything. 247 International Development Act 2015[LORDS] International Development Act 2015 248

[BARONESS SHEEHAN] Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): The noble I have two questions. First, does the Minister agree Lord has an advantage over me in knowing what the that, if there is a willingness to break international Chancellor has said; he had not risen to his feet when I law, as set out in Part 5 of the United Kingdom came into the Chamber.His Statement, like all Statements Internal Market Bill, coupled with a willingness to on fiscal events, will be released when he has sat down. break a manifesto pledge on international aid, this is There is a Topical Question in your Lordships’ House not a good look for global Britain as a “force for tomorrow, when all of us will be able to debate these good”? Secondly, how does he think that the £4 billion matters, having acquainted ourselves with what my cut to the aid budget, scrutinised to within an inch of right honourable friend has said or is saying. its life, compares to the £12 billion haemorrhaged over the last five months by the Government’s test and Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]: My Lords, does the trace programme, which is tainted by failure and mired Minister accept that a cut in aid spending would risk in fraud and corruption? undermining the leadership the UK has shown in supporting the H2H Network, which allows dozens of Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): The noble small independent groups to provide vital technical Baroness is right to pay tribute to her noble friend help, such as logistics, security and language services, Lord Purvis of Tweed, who took this Bill through in refugee camps, disaster zones and conflict areas? your Lordships’ House. She is right to say that it is a Will the Minister agree to persuade the Government proud achievement of the coalition Government, to protect the budget for these organisations through composed of both the Liberal Democrats and the the H2H network? Conservatives. This is an issue on which all parties have worked over many years. I believe the target was Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): My Lords, first adopted by a British Government in the year in the Government rely heavily on the capacity, expertise, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, was resilience and flexibility of a number of organisations, born—it took us a long time to reach it. such as the ones that the noble Baroness cites. We I am afraid the noble Baroness’s two questions are certainly pay tribute to them for their work and will, I both hypothetical, and I cannot pre-empt what my right am sure, be engaging with them as they see what my honourable friend the Chancellor is saying at the moment. right honourable friend the Chancellor is saying today.

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab): My Lords, Baroness Chalker of Wallasey (Con): My Lords, if in 2020, we have been informed by a virus that did not the newspapers are right, it is a sad day. I believe that, start in this country and will not end in this country of having supported and worked with the Liberal coalition just how interdependent our world is in the 21st century. to put the 0.7% commitment on the statute book, What possible justification could there be, in such a there is now a proposal from the Conservative world and at such a time, to reduce by two-sevenths, or Government that this might be changed. As noble £2 in every £7, the budget that we spend—that we Lords will know, I go back a very long way in this invest—around the world in tackling climate change, area. When I think of what could be done with that extreme poverty and preventing conflict and ill health? amount of money—particularly now,with the spreading of Covid, the continued spread of malaria and the Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): The noble spread of so many other diseases in Africa, which Lord is right to point to the current circumstances of might well end up coming to Europe even if they are the pandemic as a forcible reminder of the importance contained in Africa, the far east and South America at of assisting people around the world: these are global the present time—it seems to me madness; that is the problems. That is why the United Kingdom is one of only word I can use for it. I hope the noble Lord, who the largest donors to the international Covid-19 response. is quite newly facing the Front-Bench duties, will We have already committed up to £1.3 billion to explain in words of one syllable just how bad this is, combat the pandemic and to reinforce the global effort not only for the Government but for the country, to find and equitably distribute a vaccine. which will have been seen to have let down the developing world. Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My Lords, the Act in which I had a role—the Minister kindly referred to The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler): I ask noble Lords it—was as a result of consensus. Now, as the Chancellor to keep questions reasonably short so that we can get has finished his Statement and it has been released, the in all speakers on the list. Minister no longer needs to speculate; he can read from his brief what the reality is to the House. That Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): My Lords, I reality could well be the biggest reduction in UK hope my noble friend understands that I cannot comment overseas assistance in a generation. Can the Minister on speculation in newspapers. Tomorrow, we will have look me—the sponsor of the International Development an opportunity for an informed discussion after noble (Official Development Assistance Target) Act in this Lords have heard what my right honourable friend the House—in the eye? There is no provision in this Act Chancellor has said. I certainly pay tribute to my for a Secretary of State to proactively and deliberately noble friend’s work as a Minister and the work she has miss the 0.7% target; it is the law and a duty. Will the done since in forcefully making the case for the increase Government uphold the law, and can the Minister in spending. I believe that when she left her role as confirm to me, personally and directly, that Secretaries Minister,we were spending 0.2% of GNI or thereabouts. of State will continue to uphold their legal duty under It is to the great credit of successive Governments and that Act? all parties that that amount has since been increased. 249 International Development Act 2015[25 NOVEMBER 2020] International Development Act 2015 250

The Lord Bishop of Worcester [V]: My Lords, the I am proud to have been the Minister who took my 2019 Conservative general election manifesto said: noble friend Lord Purvis’s Bill through the House of “We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7% of Lords with cross-party support. I can tell the Minister GNI on development”. that it has been announced that aid has been cut from That was before Covid, of course. On 16 June, the 0.7% to 0.5%. Is he proud of that? Prime Minister said in the other place that spending 0.7% remained the Government’s commitment. On Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): I share the 18 June, the Leader of the House reassured the right noble Baroness’s pride. I was an adviser in the coalition reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough of the Government and worked with my noble friend Lady Sugg; Government’scontinued commitment to the 0.7% target. in that capacity, I shared the words that she said in In this House on 2 September, the noble Baroness, your Lordships’ House yesterday. Unlike the noble Lady Sugg, reassured the right reverend Prelate the Baroness, I have not had the opportunity to hear what Bishop of Bristol, with these words: my right honourable friend the Chancellor has said. His speech, like all fiscal events, will be released later; I “I assure her that we will continue to be guided by our will listen to what he says. Your Lordships’ House will responsibilities under the International Development Act”.—[Official Report, 2/9/20; col. 354.] have an opportunity to debate the Topical Question tomorrow. In a letter to the Prime Minister last week, I drew attention to Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s words: Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con) [V]: My Lords, “A promise to the poor is particularly sacred.” I appreciate that my noble friend can say little or Does the Minister agree with him? nothing today, but I put on record my support for the current spending level. Can my noble friend confirm that, whatever the result of the review, the department Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): My Lords, will continue to prioritise gender equality, especially the right reverend Prelate mentioned a large number girls’ education and family planning, which is the most of things said in Parliament in recent months. As I effective way of raising women, families, communities speak, my right honourable friend is saying something and countries out of poverty? further; we will all have the opportunity to acquaint ourselves with it. The right reverend Prelate is also Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): I am very right to point to the fact that this pandemic has hit us happy to give that reassurance to my noble friend. since the last manifesto was written. Since 2015, the UK has supported more than 15.5 million children in gaining a decent education; over 8 million Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): My Lords, this of them were girls, to whom that is so important. On year, we have seen £2.9 billion cut from the ODA sexual and reproductive health and family planning, budget, so whatever the Chancellor announces this between 2015 and 2020, DfID reached a yearly average afternoon will be on top of that—and could be as of 25.3 million women and girls with modern methods much as £4.8 billion. In September, only a short while of family planning. ago, Dominic Raab told an FCDO staff meeting that Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]: Does the House accept that “the prime minister has been clear he wants aid to be at the beating heart of our foreign policy” the influence that the United Kingdom can exert in the post-Brexitworldwillcomelargelythroughtheintegration and that his “good pal” the Chancellor would not be of our hard power—our defence capabilities—with cutting it. Can the Minister tell the House what the oursoftpower,whichisthecombinationof ourdiplomatic Foreign Secretary may be saying to his good pal this skillsandthefocuseduseof ourinternationaldevelopment afternoon? budget? Does the Minister therefore accept that the potential reduction in our international development Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): The noble budget that has apparently just been announced will Lord will understand that I cannot speculate on what significantly reduce our soft power and thereby reduce my right honourable friends may be saying to one the impact of so-called global Britain? Will the Minister another. My right honourable friend the Foreign ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think again Secretary led a thorough process to identify a package before flouting the 0.7% figure, which is part of the law? of necessary savings for this financial year, as the noble Lord said. That package prioritised the UK’s Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): The noble global response to the Covid-19 pandemic, including Lord raises important issues about the interconnectedness on poverty reduction for the bottom billion, climate of these things, which is part of the integrated review change and reversing biodiversity loss, championing that the Government are considering. He will have girls’ education and protecting our operational capacity. seen the announcements on defence spending, and I That work speaks for itself. will certainly read with interest what my right honourable friend has said in another place. Baroness Northover (LD): My Lords, the noble Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op): What the Baroness, Lady Sugg, said yesterday that she was Chancellor has said has now been made public, so will proud of the United Kingdom, with its commitment the Minister confirm for the House whether new legislation to 0.7%, as a “development superpower”. Last night, will be introduced to repeal the Act that we have been the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury discussing, which commits us to 0.7%? If not, who will said that reaching 0.7% was one of the be prosecuted: the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the “great moral achievements in this country of the past 20 years.” Secretary of State for International Development? 251 International Development Act 2015[LORDS] DHSC Answers to Written Questions 252

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): My Lords, daily,changing situation, and answers drafted by officials my brief does not contain a copy of my right honourable are sometimes out of date shortly after they are drafted. friend’s speech. As is normal with fiscal events, that We have been prioritising accuracy of response to will be made available to Members in another place Members over speed, but this can mean that responses and your Lordships after he has sat down, which he have to be redrafted, with attendant delays. may or may not have done. That will be the right The third challenge is policy input: despite increasing opportunity for noble Lords to acquaint themselves the administrative resources to respond to parliamentary with it. questions, it remains the same policy officials who are responding to the pandemic operationally and drafting Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]: I hope that my noble regulations and are the only people with the requisite friend the Minister will be able to answer my question policy expertise to input into parliamentary questions today. A 2019 National Audit Office report highlighted and responses. that the FCO had failed to match DfID’s transparency That said, Mr Speaker, although we continue to when it came to reporting on its ODA spending, and field exceptional volumes of parliamentary questions, that it had spent a disproportionate portion of its aid I want to reassure you and the House that we are not transfers on administrative costs. With the formation making excuses in providing these explanations, and of the FCDO, how do Her Majesty’s Government are taking every possible step to recover our performance. plan to improve transparency on the allocation of Wehave instituted a parliamentary questions performance development spending and work bilaterally with recovery plan and are delivering against it by increasing developing nations to build capacity and complement resource where we can and clearing the backlog, focusing domestic development programmes? on the oldest parliamentary questions first. Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con): I hope that I More broadly, throughout this challenging time the can answer my noble friend’s question. The Government Secretary of State and Ministers have sought to make are certainly committed to ensuring the robust scrutiny themselves regularly available in the House to be of our aid. In August, my right honourable friend the questioned and held to account. Between March and Foreign Secretary announced the continuation of the October, the Secretary of State made 18 statements Independent Commission for Aid Impact and plans to and answered seven urgent questions. We have also conduct a review, to be concluded by the end of this seen seven general debates on Covid since March, and year. That will ensure that the ICAI’s remit, focus and that is not including junior Ministers’ appearances in methods are most effectively scrutinising the impact of the Chamber. This is not an alternative to written UK aid and the good that it can do for the world’s parliamentary questions, but it is an important reflection poorest people. of our accountability to this House. To conclude, written parliamentary questions will The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler): My Lords, the time continue to be a top priority on which I am briefed allowed for this Private Notice Question has elapsed. weekly. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and hon. Members for your and their patience and recognition of the DHSC Answers to Written Questions exceptional circumstances of recent months. In the Commons Urgent Question weeks and months ahead, we will work hard to restore our leading performance, which hon. Members have a The following Statement was made on Thursday right to expect.” 19 November in the House of Commons. “Parliamentary questions are a key element of 1.18 pm Parliament’s ability to scrutinise Government on behalf Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]: My Lords, earlier this of the people of the United Kingdom. As the House week, there were 149 outstanding Written Questions would expect, we take them very seriously, and as you, addressed to the Department of Health and Social Mr Speaker, and hon. Members will know, I take Care on the Lords business paper. My first question, seriously all aspects of my and the Government’s therefore, has to be: when will they be answered? accountability to this House. Prior to the pandemic, One has to wonder about the quality of the Answers. my Department had an exemplary record of providing On 21 July, my noble friend Lord Bassam asked a accurate and timely answers. In the last full parliamentary perfectly reasonable Question about Session, despite receiving more PQs than any other “how many COVID-19 tests have been sent by post and subsequently Department, we had the highest response rate in Whitehall. returned to laboratories, for each day since the scheme began; and However, as hon. Members will be aware, DHSC, its how many of the tests sent by post have been discounted because Ministers and officials have been at the forefront of swabbed material was not collected correctly.” responding to this pandemic, with the attendant additional The Answer arrived today—25 November. It says: workload that has brought. “The information is not collected in the format requested”. As such, it is a matter of regret that we have been You have to wonder why a non-answer took so long to unable to sustain previous PQ performance, for which arrive. Does the answer possibly lie partly in the I rightly apologise to you and the House. However, it existence of the Cabinet Office clearing house? Are is explicable in the face of a trio of concurrent challenges. Written Questions subject to a clearing house process— The first is volume: between March and October this something that many regard as part of a wider obstructive year, we received over 8,000 written parliamentary approach to disclosing information? Can the Minister questions across both Houses. This compares with tell the House whether he and his department are 4,000 for the equivalent period last year. The second involved in referring things to the clearing house at the challenge is timeliness: we have met a rapidly, almost Cabinet Office? 253 DHSC Answers to Written Questions[25 NOVEMBER 2020] DHSC Answers to Written Questions 254

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I am grateful of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con): My for the answer from the health department on Lords, the very large number of questions which have 24 November to my letter of 8 June about the disparity been put to the Department of Health is completely of health outcomes from Covid-19 for Gypsies, Travellers unprecedented. We had 577 in the whole of 2019. So and Roma, although it did not answer our specific far in 2020 we have had 1,783, of which 799 have been questions and was sent only to my cosignatory, Kate answered on time and the rest are late. I apologise for Green MP, not me. Will the Minister please answer my that; it is a matter of huge regret. I ask for the forbearance question of 21 October, due to be answered on of the House, as the pandemic has put enormous 4 November, asking whether the Government would pressure on the department. recognise International Stammering Awareness Day, The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, quite correctly now long past, with better technological provision for alluded to one aspect of the answering of questions: speech and language therapists, which is sorely needed? the questions themselves often address novel challenges. Traditionally, we get questions about things that the Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, I would be glad to department has been doing for years and years, where track down the noble Baroness’s letter and get her the it is easy to pluck out an answer from the database or answer that she so desires. from the encyclopaedia of answers. The noble Baroness Lord Wills (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I have every sympathy gave a good example of a question where it is difficult with the unique pressures being placed on the Minister to elicit an answer. I know the exact question she and his department this year. It was inevitable that referred to, because I have sought really hard to provide mistakes would be made, but the crucial thing is to an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. The learn from them, not least because, however encouraging question of how many swabs have not been returned recent news has been, there are still considerable challenges by post is much more complicated than it might look. to be overcome before the country can return to There are different types of swabs; different schemes— normal. When Ministers refuse even to address questions ONS, REACT, clinical trials—send in the swabs. asked of them, it hardly encourages belief that they Inconveniently, they do not pool all the answers. Also, are prepared to learn lessons from recent months. I some swabs may sit on a bench or in a cupboard at a have asked many questions about the failure to utilise house for a long time and it is not possible to know efficiently the much-needed capacity provided by the when they are, or are not, sent back. partnership between the private sector and the NHS. I cite that as an example of the kind of challenge The responses were a masterclass in a wilful refusal to that we have faced in answering questions from noble answer questions. Does the Minister not recognise the Lords. I am not trying to detract from the inconvenience damage done by such public denial of the facts? of questions not being answered on time, but I assure the House that we have put in considerably more Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, I regret enormously resources. We have upgraded the quality of the people that the noble Lord feels that we have, in any way, who are answering the questions and have an absolute avoided the facts. We are absolutely committed to commitment to trying to answer them on time. learning the lessons of Covid, which will be profound. I note that my right honourable friend the Secretary of The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler): My Lords, I remind State was in front of the House of Commons Select Ministers that the instruction to be brief applies to Committee on health for two and a half hours yesterday, their answers, as well as to questions from other answering exactly those questions. It was an illuminating Members. and important discussion and I very much hope that this House will have an opportunity to do the same. Lord Robathan (Con): My Lords, I do not Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]: My noble underestimate the pressure under which the Department friend is, I am sure, aware of the frustrations that the of Health has been put and pay tribute to my noble House has just heard. Here is a question to which I do friend for the number of times that he comes here to not expect an answer, perhaps, at the moment. How answer Questions. However, the data behind this virus many officials are actually involved in having to provide is hugely important. I put down a Question asking these answers? Does my noble friend agree that accuracy about the number of NHS workers—doctors and of responses is more important than speed? nurses—who have been killed by the virus. The answer that came back was: “We don’t know”. Surely, we Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, before the pandemic must know this. I have also asked a question in this the parliamentary affairs team was made up of nine Chamber, not a written one, about what the strategy is people; it has grown to 15. The ministerial correspondence without vaccinations. A vaccine has now come, but we and public inquiries team has grown from 51 people to must know what the strategy is. Are we going to go 111. I think the noble Lord would agree that, at a time into another lockdown if the infection rate rises again? when we are trying to deal with test and trace along Perhaps the Minister can answer that now? with programmes on therapeutics, restart, seasonal flu, PPE and vaccines, having 111 people working on Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, matching the data correspondence seems the outer limit of what would on deaths with the HR records of the NHS is actually be proportionate. very difficult. It cannot be done easily,or even accurately. Our strategy is crystal clear: to protect the NHS, keep The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler): My Lords, all the schools open and encourage the economy while we questions in this section have now been asked. We will wait for the vaccine to be deployed. come to the next in a moment. 255 Leaseholders and Cladding [LORDS] Leaseholders and Cladding 256

Leaseholders and Cladding he also accept that redress for this scandal has to be by Commons Urgent Question the builders who built the unsafe buildings, the people who signed them off as safe, and those organisations The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given which provided insurances, warranties, guarantees and in the House of Commons on Tuesday 24 November. protections? It is regrettable that some of these companies “I congratulate the honourable Member for Sheffield are now trying to wriggle out of obligations that South East, Mr Betts, the Chair of the Select Committee they gave. on Housing, Communities and Local Government, on securing the urgent question, which is of huge interest The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of and concern to many of our constituents up and down Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord the country. Greenhalgh) (Con): My Lords, the Government do The question of who pays for remediation works is accept that leaseholders are victims in this situation. key for the Government and many of our constituents. We recognise that the £1.6 billion of public funding We have been clear that leaseholders should not have that has been put up so far to pay for the costs of to worry about the cost of fixing historical safety cladding remediation go some way to protecting defects in their buildings that they did not cause. Test leaseholders from the costs they face. We also recognise have shown clearly that aluminium composite material— that this public funding does not absolve the industry the kind of cladding found on Grenfell Tower—is the from taking responsibility. most dangerous form of cladding material. We continue to engage with building owners, regulators and the Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]: My Lords, I draw the wider industry to ensure that it is removed from high-rise attention of the House to my relevant interests in the residential buildings as quickly as possible. register. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, just said about the growing public concern over this ACM remediation costs are being funded through issue. The Health and Safety Executive gave evidence several sources, including warranties, building owners to the House of Commons scrutiny committee on the and developers. We have provided £600 million to building safety Bill, which includes some clauses on fund the removal of ACM where funding has been a cladding and fire safety of buildings. It said in the key barrier to remediation and the Chancellor of the committee’s report that leaseholders should not Exchequer has allocated a further £1 billion to be “have to worry about the cost of fixing historic safety defects in spent on removing other types of unsafe cladding over their buildings that they did not cause.” the current financial year. Does the Minister agree with the Government’s own It is important to remember that this is a multi-year Health and Safety Executive? problem. Remediation work cannot be done overnight and it must be done properly so that it makes buildings Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, with the greatest and residents safe. That forms part of the ongoing respect, the bill for remediation of historic cladding discussion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of defects cannot simply be passed to the taxpayer. We State has with other Departments. expect developers, investors and building owners who However, I am clear, and I hope that the House is have the means to cover remediation costs themselves clear, that public funding does not absolve the industry to do so without passing on costs to leaseholders. from taking responsibility.Weexpect developers, investors and building owners who have the means to pay to Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]: How many cover remediation costs themselves without passing freeholders have been asked to pay for this remedial on costs to leaseholders, but we recognise that there work on the buildings they commissioned on their are cases where that might not be possible, and cases land, and how many of those who built these dangerous where there may be wider costs relating to historical dwellings, who all gain profit from the sale of leasehold defects. The Government are determined to identify properties? What legislation do the Government plan suitable financial solutions and remove barriers to to bring forward to move from leasehold to co-ownership remediation. for multioccupancy buildings? The Government have asked Michael Wade to accelerate his work with leaseholders and the financial Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, in addition to sector to develop proposals to protect leaseholders other ministerial responsibilities, I am now responsible from the costs of remediating historical defects wherever for looking at leasehold reform. This is not the place possible. However, we must also ensure that the bill to opine on that, but just over 50% of private sector does not fall wholly on taxpayers. We will update developers and freeholders with aluminium composite leaseholders on that work before the Building Safety material in high-rises funded it and did not pass on the Bill, which has just completed its prelegislative scrutiny, costs to leaseholders—a significant proportion stepped is introduced in Parliament.” up to the plate and did the right thing.

1.28 pm Lord Blencathra (Con): My Lords, I declare a possible Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op): My Lords, interest as someone who might be affected. One million I refer the House to my relevant interests, as set out in leaseholders will still be ripped off by landlords,freeholders the register. We are clearly making some progress with and agents who will carry out all possible so-called this Statement, but we need absolute clarity that no remediation works and gold-plate them to increase the leaseholder or tenant will face any cost as a result of value of their holdings and make leaseholders pay this scandal. Does the Minister accept that tenants through the nose for them. Will my noble friend and leaseholders are the innocent victims here? Does confirm that the Government will bring forward an 257 Leaseholders and Cladding[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 258 amendment to the Fire Safety Bill stating that leaseholders 1.35 pm will not pay a penny for remedial works but will deal with the genuine anomaly of wear and tear and service Sitting suspended. charges, for which they should pay? Will he also bring forward urgent legislation on leasehold reform and the full abolition of this iniquitous, prehistoric law which Arrangement of Business should have no place in a levelled-up society? Announcement

Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, I thank my 1.41 pm noble friend—that will be about five minutes’ work. I The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) agree that leaseholders must be protected from (CB): My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will unaffordable costs, particularly if these are driven by now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, unnecessary gold-plating. I agree that leasehold reform respecting social distancing, others are participating needs to be an absolute priority, and it is a priority for remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If this Government. the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Lord Polak (Con): My Lords, I am pleased to be able to follow my noble friend Lord Blencathra. The I will call Members to speak in the order listed in HCLG report published yesterday argued, correctly, the annexe to today’s list. Interventions during speeches that leaseholders should not be expected to foot the or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted bill for failures not of their own making. Some property and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than owners have taken the necessary steps, supported by the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members the Government—and therefore the taxpayer—through may speak only once on each group. Short questions funding, but sadly so many others have not. Can my of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted noble friend tell me what I can say to Charlie, Rebecca but discouraged; a Member wishing to ask such a and their baby, who bought their new build leasehold question, including Members in the Chamber, must flat five years ago? The block failed the ESW1 process email the clerk. and the review found flammable cladding, combustible The groupings are binding and it will not be possible insulation, timber balconies and more. They are trapped to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A in a flat that could go up in flames and have repair bills Member intending to press an amendment already that could break them financially. debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, my noble friend Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. must point out to them that this Government have an When putting the question, I will collect voices in the iron resolve to make sure that developers step up to Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely the plate. They have made significant profits on those intends to trigger a Division, they should make this developments and will want to make profits in the clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin. future. We need to make them pay; we need to reason with them and say that it is no good laying this at the door of the taxpayer. They will have to step up to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill plate. I will ensure that this Government make every Report (3rd Day) endeavour to make them do so. 1.42 pm Lord Young of Cookham (Con): My Lords, 36 years ago, when I had my noble friend’s job at the then Relevant documents: 24th, 36th and 29th Reports Department of the Environment, I put on the statute from the Delegated Powers Committee, 17th Report book the Housing Defects Act 1984. In a nutshell, it from the Constitution Committee, 8th Report from compensated homeowners who found that their homes the Joint Committee on Human Rights were unsaleable, through no fault of their own, and The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) had no other form of compensation coming from the (CB): My Lords, I should inform the House that, on Government. Does my noble friend think that that Monday, Amendment 34 was agreed in error. It was legislation has relevance to today’s leaseholders? Would pre-empted by Amendment 31. he welcome my advice on how to persuade the Treasury to pay for it? Clause 39: Enforcement Lord Greenhalgh (Con): My Lords, there is no problem in public life that has not been seen before. Amendment 62 My noble friend makes a valuable point and I will indeed ask my officials to look into the ways in which Moved by Lord Callanan the Housing Defects Act of 1984, when I was doing 62: Clause 39, page 31, line 30, leave out “such” and insert “— my A-levels, and the Housing Act of 1988, when I left (a) each relevant national authority, and university, were used to address the issues we face (b) such other” today. Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would provide that the domestic administrations The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler): I call the noble must be among the bodies consulted by the CMA in relation to its Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. There is no reply. policy on enforcing information-gathering notices. 259 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 260

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department type of company from receiving penalties under the forBusiness,EnergyandIndustrialStrategy(LordCallanan) regime and narrowing the definition of the penalty (Con): My Lords, during the Bill’s progress through criteria in Clause 40 would not be appropriate and Parliament, we have engaged extensively to ensure that hinder the effectiveness of the OIM in fully it, and the Office for the Internal Market in particular, delivering monitoring across the whole of the UK work for all parts of this country. We have always been internal market. clear that the Competition and Markets Authority will I remind noble Lords that the penalty regime is ensure the devolved Administrations are consulted on proportionate.Under the proposed penalty arrangements, all important matters relating to the OIM. Following any penalties imposed will reference a daily rate or a significant discussions with our devolved counterparts fixed amount, with limits on both charges. As I have and noble Lords, we are pleased to introduce these two said, the Secretary of State will want to consult all amendments, which will underscore the importance of relevant persons before finalising the levels of penalties. the devolved Administrations in the operation of the This will help ensure fair management of penalties OIM. The Government have emphasised throughout and I would expect the OIM to apply a sensible the introduction of the Bill that the UK internal market approach to implementing those penalties in line with needs to work for all parts of this country, and these its published policy statement. Removing the ability to amendments are a testimony to this aim. impose a penalty against those qualifying as a small Amendment 62 ensures the CMA must consult the company under the Companies Act 2006 or when devolved Administrations when preparing or revising investigating regulatory provisions will set a precedent its policy on enforcing information-gathering notices. that compliance with an information notice is not Alongside this, Amendment 63 will require the Secretary always mandatory. I have made clear, and these new of State to consult the devolved Administrations over government amendments also make clear, that we will the level of fines that can be placed on bodies that do consult carefully on penalties and take concerns, including not comply with a CMA request for information. those of small businesses, into account to strike the Both amendments give the devolved Administrations right balance. a significant say in the key operations of the OIM. Clause 40 provides for a holistic, thorough approach These amendments will put beyond doubt this to penalties, when evidence and consultation with Government’s commitment to ensuring that the interests other relevant persons necessitates it, by the CMA as of the devolved Administrations are reflected in the OIM, whenever it needs a person to provide governance of the OIM and that the OIM will documentation to carry out its functions and it is clear continue to meet the interests of all parts of the that a voluntary approach will not work. For these United Kingdom. reasons, I hope I have reassured noble Lords and hope I turn now to Amendments 62A, 63A and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, will not move her 63B, which seek to alter the CMA’s ability to effectively amendments. I beg to move. gather information. I reassure the House that, as highlighted in previous debates on the Bill, these penalty Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]: My Lords, powers in Part 4 will not be commenced unless there I thank the Minister for some of the considerations on is a clear and credible need for them—for which he elaborated around some of the penalties, but example, to ensure that the OIM can gather credible I find it hard to accept this in principle. The information- and accurate information for its reporting and monitoring gathering procedures in the Bill seem without any purposes. I believe this goes some way to addressing limit on them in the Bill—an unreasonable measure. many of the concerns of the noble Baroness, To try to find a way to tackle that, I tabled three Lady Bowles, regarding the design of the information- amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, gathering and enforcement regime. This will ensure and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for signing that such a regime will be well considered, based on Amendment 62A on the small business exemption. clear evidence of need and proportionate to fulfil the From among the amendments, we hoped the Minister OIM’s duties. I emphasise that the need for accurate, might consider adopting that one or come forward and up-to-date information is essential to ensure that with a version for Third Reading. the OIM’sreports and advice are credible, evidence-based Understanding why the penalty provision is and meaningfully capture the UK internal market unreasonable requires analysis of the background. landscape. Section 5 of the Enterprise Act 2002 gives the CMA an information-gathering function for obtaining, 1.45 pm compiling and keeping under review information about I recognise the concerns of the noble Baroness that matters relating to the carrying out of its functions; it small businesses should not suffer disproportionate does not give a fining power in order to compel burdens in complying with the law, and a definition of businesses to respond. Such compulsion can come the penalty criteria of Clause 40 should apply only later, at a stage when a market study is undertaken, but when investigating adverse effects in the UK internal the circumstances then are that some suspicion exists market. To reiterate: the CMA will prioritise carrying that businesses themselves have contributed to failures out information-gathering on a voluntary basis.However, in the market. In contrast, Clause 38 of this Bill gives there may be circumstances in which a formal information the CMA, in connection with reports under Clauses 31 notice is required. It is therefore vital the CMA is to 34, or under Section 5 of the Enterprise Act when it given the necessary legal powers to help ensure that concerns those clauses, the power to collect information this assistance is provided. These are all based on the and impose penalties on individuals and businesses in existing powers of the CMA. Therefore, excluding one order to make them respond. 261 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 262

This power exceeds what the CMA can do for This is a huge encroachment on civil liberties and ordinary information gathering, and the provisions the freedom to conduct business. I hope that, at this are a copy and paste of the powers that accompany 11th hour, the Minister will listen and come back with the stronger measure of a CMA market study. But something at Third Reading to put in the Bill that there has not been any corresponding copying of the reinforces the statements he has made. But, if there is other conditions that surround a market study; nor is not that prospect, this is a matter of deep principle—and it a comparable situation to a market study, because I speak as somebody who ran a small business for there is no suggestion that the things being investigated 30 years—and I must give notice of my intention to might be happening because of what businesses themselves call a vote on Amendment 62A if negotiations cannot are doing. proceed at Third Reading. The powers in this Bill are about investigating regulations, which is entirely beyond the control of Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]: My Lords, I am delighted business, and there is no wrongdoing by business. that my noble friend has listened to many of the These investigations are about circumstances created concerns raised in Committee. I also welcome his by legislatures and which legislatures wish to investigate. saying that the Government will consult carefully on It is more comparable to a departmental consultation penalties, and the penalties will be limited. I thank him than to a market study, so what is the justification for for saying that the needs of small businesses will be coercing and burdening businesses, even if the Minister taken into account as well. says there will be rules making that perhaps a bit less However, I cannot help but continue to support the onerous? In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, said of these powers: Lady Bowles, which I have added my name to, alongside “The argument that they were derived from legislation the the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, because the points she purpose of which was very different is well taken and might point made seem most persuasive. She has clearly explained to further amendment.”—[Official Report, 4/11/20; col. 726.] that the proposed penalty regime is not comparable That is the view of the recent, former chair of the with that of the current CMA, despite my noble friend CMA. indicating that it is. One of my amendments would delete the penalties The penalties under the CMA would apply in cases clause, which is really what I think should be done, where firms are suspected of wrongdoing or unfair although I see little hope of persuading the Minister. competition or practices. But it has already been My second attempt, Amendment 63B, tried to recreate acknowledged by my noble friends Lord True and some of the circumstances of a market study, but as Lord Tyrie that the Bill is concerned here merely with the Minister recently confirmed that only regulations data gathering itself, such as would occur in consultations can be investigated, not business cases, it does not or calls for evidence, rather than information requests fit and it does not work. So my third attempt— that follow from suspected failures. Therefore, I urge Amendment 62A—concentrating where it really matters, my noble friend the Minister to reconsider the position exempts small businesses from the penalties. It uses that many small businesses could find themselves in if the small business definition from the Companies Act, information is demanded of them under these powers. expanded to cover non-company structures. The It would take scarce corporate resources away from Companies Act recognises that small businesses should operating the business and is likely to pose significant have a lesser public interest burden by exemption from difficulties for firms that do not have lots of employees some filings and it recognises that in primary legislation—it available to comply with such an information request. does not rely upon regulations or codes of conduct. I point out to my noble friend the Minister from Why not apply similar logic here? these Benches—as a member of a party that has Small businesses do not all have the wherewithal to always been the friend of small business and has respond to onerous consultations, although many will promoted the value and virtue of people starting up help when they can, but the information requirements businesses and running small firms themselves—that in this Bill can require work to be done or attendance there is a significant risk here of imposing unreasonable at a given place, both causing financial loss. There is burdens. I echo the call from the noble Baroness, no compensation save travel expenses. Yes, there is a Lady Bowles, for a meeting with him before Third “without good reason”defence,but the smallest businesses Reading to see if we can find a form of words that the cannot afford a legal challenge even if they knew of Government could accept, to avoid the need for a vote the defence. on Report. Perhaps the CMA will be reasonable itself in setting I hope my noble friend understands that this is its code of practice. The Minister hopes so, but there is about a fear that the Bill imposes unreasonable and no certainty, and a notice detailing applicable penalties abnormal demands. For example, on pensions, the is a frightening thing. Of course, it belongs to another Pensions Regulator has not previously had the power culture, in which the CMA’s core functions require to demand information from schemes unless it suspected confrontation with business and suspicion that businesses wrongdoing. I hope we can find a way in this Bill to and companies are doing wrong. exempt small businesses from this burden and the In Committee I asked the Minister what would potential threat of penalties. constitute a reasonable excuse, giving a wide range of examples relative to small businesses. I got no reply, 2 pm nor have I had a written reply despite having asked for Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB) [V]: My Lords, I one—although I know the Minister is very busy, not have added my name to Amendment 62A, proposed least writing to colleagues. by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. We owe her our 263 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 264

[LORD VAUX OF HARROWDEN] protest from the committee rooms of Brussels to the thanks for bringing this important wrinkle in the Bill banks of the Tyne, which he represented, and he to our attention. She and the noble Baroness, Lady would have raised the roof on the wonderful auditorium Altmann, have already eloquently set out the reasons of the plenary in Strasbourg. I can hear him now in why this amendment is needed, so I will not detain the excellent Brexiteer mode. Of course, now that Brexit House for too long. has happened, these concerns are of no consequence. The Bill creates draconian powers of investigation The truth is—and I think this is going to become for the CMA, with associated penalties which, as we clear—that for business Brexit means more and more have heard, are much more suited to its duties of bureaucracy, and this is what we are seeing in terms of investigating market abuse. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, the new customs arrangements and in terms of this Lady Bowles, pointed out, the wording has actually Bill. There—I cannot resist making that point. been lifted from those duties. However, the purposes Having said that, there are many serious issues with of the investigation set out in this Bill are very different this Bill. I regard it as a treaty-breaking, devolution- from market abuse investigations. In this Bill they are wrecking, United Kingdom-unravelling Bill. These are investigations into the impacts of regulations or provisions serious points for debate and many of the amendments made by the various national authorities. Businesses we are considering this afternoon, I am afraid, contribute are not in this case being suspected of, or investigated to those consequences. So I hope that a compromise for, market abuse, yet the Bill will mean that they will can be reached on this matter before Third Reading have to respond to notices subject to penalty as if and, on that basis, I will abstain in the Division. they were. Even if we reluctantly accept that these powers and The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con): The next penalties are appropriate—and I do not—we must speaker on the list, the noble Baroness,Lady Neville-Rolfe, surely ensure that the powers, and in particular the has withdrawn. I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh penalties, do not become an undue or unfair burden of Pickering. on business. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): My Lords, I the Minister had to say in this opening speech, and I am delighted to follow the noble Lord. Like him, I was am afraid that I do not think that the protections and surprised at the level of the penalties for these the consultations that he mentioned go far enough in infringements. I join noble Lords who congratulated this case. and thanked my noble friend the Minister for listening While larger businesses may be able to cope with to concerns expressed at an earlier stage of proceedings such an investigation, small companies do not have and bringing forward Amendment 62. I will just ask: compliance departments or in-house legal teams. They what form will the consultation by the CMA with the do not have the excess capacity to be able to deal with devolved Administrations take? How long will be allocated suchinvestigations.Eveninnormaltimes,theseinvestigations to it generally, along with the other bodies that are to would be burdensome for small companies, and it is be consulted? even more the case when they are trying to recover Has the CMA taken a policy decision not to have from the Covid crisis and at the same face up to the on its board currently, as I read it, any representatives challenges that leaving the EU single market will create. of the devolved Administrations? I notice that Jo This is no time to load additional burdens on to small Armstrong, for whom I have the highest regard, is businesses. Therefore, I urge the Minister to accept this represented. She is currently a commissioner with the simple—and,Ihadhoped,uncontroversial—amendment, Water Industry Commission for Scotland with whom or at least to come forward with some protections for I have had the pleasure to work for four or five years. smaller companies, as has been suggested. But I do not see that any specific representatives of the devolved Administrations are there. Given the thrust Lord Liddle (Lab): My Lords, I very much welcome and context of this Bill, it will be interesting to know if the opening statement from the noble Lord, there is any policy principle as to why there are not. I Lord Callanan. I think he has proposed an improvement know that my noble friend will say that that is a matter in the Bill, by adding further requirements for consultation for the CMA, but it works under the guidance of the with the devolved Administrations. That is for the Secretary of State and the department, so I ask him to good. I also have a great deal of sympathy with the comment in that regard. amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I echo the concerns raised by other noble Lords and I can see the argument that, if there are impediments I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for her to the internal market in a particular sector, the new Amendments 62A, 63A and 63B. I ask my noble body will require an information-gathering power, and friend to consider to what extent the ask under Article 39 if you have that power you have to have an enforcement goes much wider than is currently envisaged in, I power. It is welcome that the Minister says that these think, the Enterprise Act that forms the basis for these powers will be exercised in a voluntary and proportionate provisions. Against the background that these are way. Yes, maybe—but I do think that there is a special quite substantive penalties, will the Minister be mindful concern about small businesses, to which I hope the of the debate that we have had, noting, in particular, Minister can find a way of responding positively in his the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, reply. my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Lords, I have to say—and I cannot resist the temptation to Lord Vaux and Lord Liddle? Will my noble friend poke fun at the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on this—that have regard and perhaps pause at this stage and come if such clauses had been proposed by the European forward with a further government amendment at Commission, we would have heard his screams of Third Reading? 265 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 266

Baroness Noakes (Con): My Lords, I support the place, and it is good that when we discuss things in government amendments in this group, but I put my depth, right across the Chamber, problems are raised name down to speak in order to address the other and the Minister listens. I welcome enormously amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles Amendments 62 and 63. of Berkhamsted. Like her, I am concerned about the However, I share the concerns of some other noble heavy-handed penalties that could apply in respect of Lords about the implications of Amendment 62A. It the CMA’s information powers under the Bill. raises questions that ought to be considered—although The CMA has extensive information powers under I am not in a position to repeat what my noble friend the Enterprise Act 2002, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lady Noakes said. I hope that the Minister has listened Bowles, explained, which are needed so that it can to the concerns expressed from both sides of the carry out its competition functions effectively,in particular Chamber and will find a means of ensuring that what in the face of companies or sectors that are resistant to might be very unusual cannot happen. I am sure one of the CMA studies. However, there has to be a that my noble friend on the Front Bench is listening. serious question about the information powers put Some consideration should be given to including into the Bill in respect of the office for the internal Amendment 62A, or something comparable, in the market. It should be remembered there was no clear Bill. consultation on this during the summer,so the proposals have not had a lot of serious attention. 2.15 pm The OIM will of course be focused on the effectiveness Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I have to declare of the internal market rather than the behaviour of an interest, in the sense that, due to my IT incompetence, companies or sectors. I understand that the OIM my name appeared in error on this list of speakers. needs to build up a picture of intra-UK trade flows in Nevertheless, I have listened to the debate. It is not an order to understand the scope of what it is looking at, area that I know anything at all about, but I am much and it should have the ability to request that information. taken with the amendment from the noble Baroness, However, to back up that kind of information gathering Lady Bowles. My views were summed up by my noble with extensive penalties is not right. It stands in stark friend Lord Liddle. I agree with him. The Minister has contrast with the Trade Bill, which sets up the possibility obviously tried to meet the requests of the House with of requesting information from businesses in respect his own amendments and, to that extent, we should be of international trade—but it is very clearly a request, grateful. However, as I say, I really was not part of this with no compulsion. My noble friend Lord Grimstone debate but the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has of Boscobel confirmed that in Committee on the my support. Trade Bill. The office for the internal market may well want to The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con): My Lords, gather information from the devolved Administrations the next speaker on the list, the noble Lord, Lord Flight, or regulatory bodies within the devolved territories. has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox. For example, it could be looking at whether particular provisions have a detrimental effect. That sort of Lord Fox (LD): My Lords, many noble Lords have information gathering is largely within the public sector, railed against the virtual process, but the serendipitous and the enforcement provisions in Clauses 39 and 40 arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is perhaps do not make sense in that context. justification for having a virtual Parliament after all. Can the Minister say who the “persons”in Clause 39, I thank the Minister and other speakers in this whom the Government expect to be served with a short debate. I should like to put this issue into context. penalty notice, are? Could one of them be, for example, Back in the day, when I worked in the real world, in the First Minister in Scotland, or one of her Ministers? many cases the sort of inquiry that we are talking If not, why not? I suspect that the serious information about would have come across my desk. I worked for that may need to be extracted at some stage will come large international corporate companies and, even for from the devolved Administrations. Why should us, it was difficult to find the resources to respond to businesses, which will be the victims of any abuses of some of these requests. So this is a real problem and the internal market, be treated in the way envisaged in Amendment 62A seeks to address a real issue that will the Bill? genuinely cross the desks of small businesses in So I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in this country. particular in her Amendment 62A to try to shield The Minister tried to corral these requests, saying small companies from these powers. I listened carefully that they would occur only when the office for the to what the Minister said in his introductory remarks, internal market needed credible and accurate information. which were very helpful, but I remain concerned that Well, I trust that it always needs credible and accurate the CMA will use inappropriately the powers given to information, so that is no restriction on the office. it by the Bill. There are no safeguards against that, so I He also talked about the word “proportionate”. I hope that my noble friend will take this away for should correct the noble Lord, Lord Liddle: the further discussions between Report and Third Reading. Minister did not use the word “voluntary”. He said “proportionate”. This is not a voluntary process but Lord Naseby (Con): My Lords, I should declare an a compulsory one, as it stands in the Bill. That is interest in that I have a partnership with my wife to the problem. And proportionate to whom? Is it look after 40 acres of woodland in Bedfordshire. I proportionate to the desire of the office for the internal thank my noble friend on the Front Bench. I have market to get credible and accurate information, or worked on a great number of Bills in this and the other proportionate to the fact that five, six or seven people 267 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 268

[LORD FOX] Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): My Lords, occupy an important part of the market but do not partly for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, necessarily have the resources to respond to these has given, this has been an interesting debate, with requests? some flying in without any original intent but also The Minister also said that only in a small number from across the House. It highlights many of the of cases did he expect that a formal information notice issues facing what was meant to be an “oh so easy” would be required. Well, that is where some of the departure from nearly half a century of EU membership. clarification can come. What are the circumstances Practices and rules within the EU developed over around which a formal information notice would be years, with input and experience from business and required? How do we ring-fence it and make sure that consumers and the experience of how things worked, we understand what “proportionate” means in the and from Governments, regulators, courts and lawyers. context of this discussion? The Minister also said that As my noble friend Lord Liddle said, there were leaving out, or giving this exemption to, small businesses umpteen harrumphs, grumphs and complaints from would set a terrible precedent. However, my sense is the Minister and others who are not supporters of the that precedents have already been set in other Acts. I EU, but the rules were created in that way. They were cannot remember exactly, but I think that the Corporate created by discussion, experience and by knowing Insolvency and Governance Act has carve-outs for what was needed when. They were not written hurriedly small businesses, and there are many other Acts in over the summer, as we know the Bill was. which small businesses already have carve-outs. So the precedent already exists; it is just a question of which The creation of an internal market, covering four precedent one chooses to select. parts of the UK with their own Governments and competences, needs as much careful thought, planning The nub of the problem is that the Minister said and, especially, consultation and joint decision-making that the powers were carved out of the existing powers as has worked so well across the EU as its single of the CMA. However, just as the noble Baroness, market developed. It is sad that some of these amendments Lady Noakes, said, the powers are used for an entirely need to be written into legislation—we hoped they different purpose—to investigate and identify potential would have been taken for granted. But we need to set irregularities and law-breaking. That is not the nature down that the devolved authorities should, of course, of what we are saying. be consulted at any stage of decision-making, and we When I entered this debate, I expected, for once, to therefore welcome Amendments 62 and 63 in the be on the same side of the argument as the noble Minister’s name, and welcome this formalising of the Baroness,Lady Noakes,and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, devolved Administrations’ rights and roles. and that proved the case. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, gave a very powerful and detailed explanation The other issues raised by the noble Baronesses, about why the Minister should be serious about this Lady Bowles, Lady Altmann and Lady Noakes, are issue. It is absolutely true that the Trade Bill has taken clearly accurate in their specific content. Our only a different route; it acknowledges that this information problem with them, especially given the vital three is essential but has gone down the route of gathering it issues in the Bill—Part 5, the Henry VIII powers and voluntarily.If the Minister is in the business of precedence, devolution—is that they are probably not the right perhaps that would be a better precedent for him to subjects on which to ask the Commons to think again, take. but we would like to ask the Government to think again. There are some really big questions that we It seems bizarre that a Conservative Government need the Commons to consider. Our fear is that sending would push this level of red tape on the small, enterprising Amendments 62A and 63B back to the Commons and innovative businesses of this country. It seems simply would not serve a purpose. It normally takes a strange that we should be the flag carriers of this case, nanosecond for them to be overturned there when, rather than the Minister, and it was important to hear actually, we want to get the attention of the Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pick this up. and Government. My noble friend Lady Bowles talked about the possibility of something being agreed for Third Reading. I have a slight problem with the idea of releasing I am no expert in body language, but I saw a faint small businesses from all penalties. We do not do that shaking of the head cross the Minister’s personage in other areas, in particular with health and safety. when my noble friend mentioned the idea of some sort Offering a complete safe haven in all circumstances of negotiation or compromise being reached in time could be detrimental to consumers and employees—but for Third Reading. In light of what the Minister has that is a small point. More serious is the wider issue heard, not just from this side of the House but from touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, of his staunchest supporters throughout the Bill, making whether these information-gathering powers are right. serious and important comments about this issue, I As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, the OIM is being ask that, whatever decision he comes to, he makes it shoehorned into the CMA, and the fit simply does not very clear verbally. We are in a hybrid House, and not work. As a regulator, the office for the internal market all of us can benefit from the subtle nuances of the would be better tailored to be independent, so it could Minister’s demeanour in working out whether he will develop rules, a code of practice or any penalties or will not be negotiating at Third Reading. Can the needed suited to the task in front of it, rather than Minister be clear about his intentions between now brought over from elsewhere. We are going to discuss and Third Reading, then we can be clear about whether that later: the big issue of whether the OIM should to vote in support of this amendment? indeed be part of the CMA. 269 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 270

My plea to the movers is not to put this to a vote as I said in my opening remarks, the amendments on today. My guess is that the Minister would prefer that, which we have been able to get agreement put beyond because he would be able to wait for the other place to doubt that the OIM will closely consult and work with overturn it, which is not what we want at all. I worry the devolved Administrations on an equal basis, in the that it would detract from the big issues, but it would interests of all parts of the United Kingdom. These also not deal with the broader issue of how the OIM important changes ensure that the OIM’s policy on will work. For that reason, we do not support it. I do information-gathering and enforcement, including the not think it is the right way of dealing with an important level of penalties, will be carefully considered in issue. consultation with the devolved Administrations. This I make one further point on how devolution is to be will ensure greater transparency in decision-making strengthened, which is part of the noble Lord’s and will help ensure that the OIM will be able to amendments. It is about recognising the devolved gather the accurate information it needs to independently authorities, as we implement the plan in the Bill to assess and monitor the UK internal market. Of course, make an internal market work. The Minister has the Government have made it clear that reports carried protested throughout that the Government are committed out by the OIM each year will be made available both to the common frameworks process and that they have to this Parliament and to the devolved legislatures. not retreated from the principles under which they I reiterate a point I made in previous debates: to be were set up in 2017. Ministers have said that they clear, the penalty powers in Part 4 will not come into respect the hard work that has gone into making these effect unless there is clear evidence that there is a need frameworks over the last three years, and the way in to do so in order for the CMA to fulfil its internal which they are pioneering new ways of working between market functions.I believe that this provides the necessary the four countries and the harmony, as well as assurances that any penalties regime will be proportionate harmonisation, that has emerged. They have reiterated and transparent. praise of the common frameworks, at the same time as saying that they are inadequate, partial and need to be In addressing some of the points made in the overtaken by the Bill, rejecting all evidence to the debate, I turn first to those made by the noble Baroness, contrary and despite public concern that the Bill will Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on lower standards and provide less certainty than the precedent. I can certainly reassure noble Lords that frameworks will. the Bill sets out clearly the maximum limits to the level of financial penalties in Clause 40(6). They do not 2.30 pm exceed those which the CMA can currently impose. We have heard that Ministers in Wales and Scotland Penalties and the enforcement regime are based on have warned that the Bill precedent, as set out in the Enterprise and Regulatory “To all intents and purposes … removes any incentives for the Reform Act 2013. As I mentioned in my opening UK Government to continue engaging with the common frameworks.” speech, the justification for these powers is that, without That is a serious concern, and it sounds as if the such a deterrent in place, there is an incentive not to evidence is showing that that concern is right. According comply with information-gathering requests, and that to the work of our Common Frameworks Scrutiny runs the risk of not having completely accurate Committee, there are indications that the Bill is already information supplied to the OIM. having a chilling effect on the progress of achieving My noble friend Lady Altmann gave the example of common frameworks. the Pensions Regulator. I can say that excluding an In July, the Cabinet Office Minister Chloe Smith entire class of business from information-gathering wrote to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, and to the requirements such as these does not have as firm a Liaison Committee, saying that seven frameworks would standing in precedent as the she suggests. The CMA be developed and agreed by the end of this year. In acting as a reasonable public body will, of course, in September, she reduced that to five. As of today, only all cases, take into account all relevant factors, whether two have been published, on nutrition and on hazardous on the face of the Bill or not, in considering how to act substances. I am afraid that the others, even if published, and whether to pursue penalties, if they have been will not have time to complete their parliamentary commenced at all. scrutiny by the end of the year. Moreover, the Common Frameworks Scrutiny My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about Committee is aware that, in the process of completing reasonable excuses. I am not sure whether it was she the task of making the frameworks, some—such as who asked me a similar question on Report on Monday, nutrition––are already coming up against the requirements but as I said then, the CMA would set out in its in this Bill. No doubt there will be future examples of statement of policy the clear steps and procedures that emerging in the next few weeks. Will the Minister regarding the enforcement of its information-gathering say, before the Bill progresses further, whether he will regime. The penalties will not be commenced until seek the advice of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny there is evidence that they are called for, and even then Committee on this emerging evidence of difficulties, they will not be used except as a last resort, whatever so that we really do make sure that this Bill is not the size of the business. The CMA will consult all going to undermine but will support the work of the relevant persons regarding its statement of policy. I common frameworks? am happy to confirm to my noble friend Lady Noakes that, as I said in Committee, the CMA will not be able Lord Callanan (Con): I thank all noble Lords for to issue a financial penalty against—I am pleased to their interventions on this subject; I understand the say—either this Government or any UK Government, sincerity with which Peers have addressed it. However, or indeed the devolved Administrations. 271 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 272

[LORD CALLANAN] Beith, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned Benjamin, B. McNally, L. consultations. The Bill requires that Ministers should Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Meacher, B. consult as a matter of fact before they exercise their Berkeley of Knighton, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Berkeley, L. B. delegated powers. As is normal for such legislation, it Bhatia, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. does not spell out in great detail how this must be Bichard, L. Neuberger, B. achieved, but we will engage with the devolved Birt, L. Newby, L. Administrations as part of the process of normal Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Northbrook, L. policy development, by, for example, sharing draft SIs B. Northover, B. and publications, and co-operating on public-facing Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Oates, L. Bowness, L. O’Loan, B. events wherever that is possible, and, in any case, more Boycott, B. formally before a decision is made. O’Neill of Bengarve, B. Bradshaw, L. Paddick, L. For all of the reasons that I have set out, I hope that Brinton, B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. noble Lords will accept the amendments that I have Broers, L. Parminter, B. Bruce of Bennachie, L. Pinnock, B. tabled and that the noble Baroness will not press hers. Burnett, L. However, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, Burt of Solihull, B. Prashar, B. and to be absolutely clear and to put the matter Butler-Sloss, B. Purvis of Tweed, L. beyond doubt, I am afraid that I have gone as far as I Campbell of Pittenweem, Ramsbotham, L. L. Randerson, B. can go on these matters and I will not be reflecting Razzall, L. further before Third Reading. Therefore, if the noble Campbell of Surbiton, B. Carlile of Berriew, L. Redesdale, L. Baroness wants to test the opinion of the House, she Cashman, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. should do so now. Chidgey, L. Rennard, L. Clancarty, E. Ricketts, L. The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con): My Lords, Clement-Jones, L. Ritchie of Downpatrick, I have received no request to ask the Minister a short Cooper of Windrush, L. B. question. I shall therefore put the Question. Cotter, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Coussins, B. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Amendment 62 agreed. Crisp, L. Russell of Liverpool, L. Deech, B. Sandwich, E. Dholakia, L. Scott of Needham Market, Clause 40: Penalties Doocey, B. B. D’Souza, B. Scriven, L. Amendment 62A Eames, L. Sharkey, L. Erroll, E. Sheehan, B. Moved by Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Evans of Watford, L. Shipley, L. 62A: Clause 40, page 32, line 7, at end insert— Featherstone, B. Smith of Newnham, B. Field of Birkenhead, L. Somerset, D. “( ) Penalties under section 39(1) or (2) may not be imposed Finlay of Llandaff, B. Stern of Brentford, L. on small companies, as defined in section 382 of the Foster of Bath, L. Stern, B. Companies Act 2006 (companies qualifying as small: Fox, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. general), or on partnerships or other businesses with Freyberg, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. similar criteria.” Garden of Frognal, B. Storey, L. German, L. Strasburger, L. Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]: In moving Glasgow, E. Stunell, L. this amendment, I am sorry that the Minister is not Goddard of Stockport, L. Suttie, B. prepared to negotiate further about small businesses. I Greaves, L. Taverne, L. Grender, B. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. am also sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, Grey-Thompson, B. Teverson, L. and Labour do not seem to think that small businesses— Hamwee, B. Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L. which are the backbone of jobs and the economy in Hannay of Chiswick, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. this country—are a sufficiently serious matter. I consider Harries of Pentregarth, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. that allowing businesses to have the freedom to conduct Harris of Richmond, B. Thornhill, B. their business without obstruction when they have Hollins, B. Thurlow, L. Houghton of Richmond, Thurso, V. done no wrong is quite a serious constitutional matter. L. Tonge, B. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House and Humphreys, B. Tope, L. to record my vote and those of my colleagues. Hussein-Ece, B. Truscott, L. Janke, B. Tyler of Enfield, B. 2.38 pm Jones of Cheltenham, L. Tyler, L. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Uddin, B. Division conducted remotely on Amendment 62A Jordan, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Verjee, L. Contents 155; Not-Contents 249. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Walker of Aldringham, L. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Amendment 62A disagreed. Kerslake, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Kidron, B. Walmsley, B. Division No. 1 Kilclooney, L. Watkins of Tavistock, B. Kramer, B. Wellington, D. CONTENTS Krebs, L. Wigley, L. Addington, L. Alton of Liverpool, L. Loomba, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Alderdice, L. Bakewell of Hardington Ludford, B. Wilson of Dinton, L. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Woolf, L. Allan of Hallam, L. Mandeville, B. L. Wrigglesworth, L. Alliance, L. Barker, B. Masham of Ilton, B. Young of Hornsey, B. 273 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 274

NOT CONTENTS Mackay of Clashfern, L. Risby, L. Macpherson of Earl’s Court, Aberdare, L. Fall, B. Robathan, L. L. Agnew of Oulton, L. Farmer, L. Rock, B. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Faulks, L. Rogan, L. Mancroft, L. Sarfraz, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Mann, L. Arran, E. Fink, L. Sassoon, L. Manzoor, B. Sater, B. Ashton of Hyde, L. Finn, B. Marland, L. Astor of Hever, L. Fleet, B. Scott of Bybrook, B. Maude of Horsham, L. Seccombe, B. Austin of Dudley, L. Flight, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Balfe, L. Fookes, B. McCrea of Magherafelt and Bamford, L. Fox of Buckley, B. Cookstown, L. Sharpe of Epsom, L. Barran, B. Framlingham, L. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Sheikh, L. Barwell, L. Freud, L. McLoughlin, L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Bates, L. Fullbrook, B. Mendoza, L. Shinkwin, L. Bellingham, L. Gadhia, L. Meyer, B. Shrewsbury, E. Bethell, L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Mone, B. Smith of Hindhead, L. Blackwell, L. Garnier, L. Montrose, D. St John of Bletso, L. Blackwood of North Oxford, Gilbert of Panteg, L. Moore of Etchingham , L. Stedman-Scott, B. B. Glenarthur, L. Morgan of Cotes, B. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Blencathra, L. Glendonbrook, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Stewart of Dirleton, L. Bloomfield of Hinton Gold, L. Morrissey, B. Stirrup, L. Waldrist, B. Goldie, B. Morrow, L. Strathclyde, L. Borwick, L. Goodlad, L. Moylan, L. Stroud, B. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Goschen, V. Moynihan, L. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Grabiner, L. Murphy, B. Sugg, B. Brabazon of Tara, L. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Nash, L. Suri, L. Brady, B. Green of Hurstpierpoint, L. Neville-Jones, B. Swinfen, L. Bridgeman, V. Greenhalgh, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Bridges of Headley, L. Greenway, L. Newlove, B. Trefgarne, L. Brown of Eaton-under- Grimstone of Boscobel, L. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Trenchard, V. Heywood, L. Hague of Richmond, L. B. Trimble, L. Browne of Belmont, L. Hailsham, V. Norton of Louth, L. True, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Hamilton of Epsom, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Ullswater, V. L. Haselhurst, L. Pannick, L. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Buscombe, B. Hay of Ballyore, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay , L. Vere of Norbiton, B. Caine, L. Hayward, L. Patel, L. Verma, B. Caithness, E. Helic, B. Pearson of Rannoch, L. Vinson, L. Callanan, L. Henley, L. Pickles, L. Wakeham, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Herbert of South Downs, L. Pidding, B. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. Carrington, L. Hill of Oareford, L. Polak, L. Walney, L. Cathcart, E. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Popat, L. Warsi, B. Cavendish of Furness, L. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Porter of Spalding, L. Waverley, V. Chalker of Wallasey, B. L. Powell of Bayswater, L. Wei, L. Chartres, L. Hoey, B. Rana, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Hogan-Howe, L. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Whitby, L. Choudrey, L. Holmes of Richmond, L. Ranger, L. Wilcox, B. Clarke of Nottingham, L. Hooper, B. Ravensdale, L. Williams of Trafford, B. Colgrain, L. Horam, L. Reay, L. Wolfson of Aspley Guise, L. Colwyn, L. Howard of Lympne, L. Redfern, B. Wyld, B. Cork and Orrery, E. Howard of Rising, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Young of Cookham, L. Courtown, E. Howe, E. Ribeiro, L. Young of Graffham, L. Couttie, B. Howell of Guildford, L. Ridley, V. Younger of Leckie, V. Cox, B. Hunt of Wirral, L. Craig of Radley, L. James of Blackheath, L. 2.53 pm Craigavon, V. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Crathorne, L. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Cumberlege, B. Jopling, L. Amendment 63 Curry of Kirkharle, L. Kakkar, L. Moved by Lord Callanan Dannatt, L. Kalms, L. Davies of Gower, L. Keen of Elie, L. 63: Clause 40, page 32, line 19, after “CMA,” insert— De Mauley, L. King of Bridgwater, L. “(aa) each other relevant national authority,” Deben, L. King of Lothbury, L. Member’s explanatory statement Deighton, L. Kirkham, L. Desai, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. This amendment would provide that the other domestic Devon, E. Laming, L. administrations must be among the bodies consulted by the Dobbs, L. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Secretary of State about regulations setting the level of penalties Dodds of Duncairn, L. Lancaster of Kimbolton, L. for contraventions of information-gathering notices issued by Duncan of Springbank, L. Lang of Monkton, L. the CMA. Dunlop, L. Lansley, L. Amendment 63 agreed. Eaton, B. Leigh of Hurley, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. Lilley, L. Amendments 63A and 63B not moved. Eccles, V. Lindsay, E. Empey, L. Lingfield, L. The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con): We now Evans of Bowes Park, B. Liverpool, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Lothian, M. come to the group beginning with Amendment 64. I Fairhead, B. Lucas, L. remind noble Lords that Members other than the Falkner of Margravine, B. Lupton, L. mover and the Minister may speak only once and that 275 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 276

[LORD LEXDEN] continue to call it a shared prosperity fund, because I short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone believe in the union and in sharing the way our country wishing to press this amendment or anything else in is governed, and I hope that we will never have this this group to a Division should make that clear in aspect of American politics brought into our way of debate. doing things but, plainly, there are dangers along those lines. Clause 42: Power to provide financial assistance for This clause is best analysed by asking eight questions. economic development etc The first is why it is included in the Bill? As it stands, it is wholly separate from the other provisions we have Amendment 64 been debating, which are to do with the internal market. The Bill is not concerned with the allocation Moved by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd of government powers to spend money between the 64: Clause 42, leave out Clause 42 devolved Governments and the Government of the Member’s explanatory statement United Kingdom with England. Secondly, what is its This amendment is intended to remove the provision for a aim? I have addressed that: as was stated in the Minister of the Crown to provide financial assistance for economic Government’s manifesto and now in box 3.1, it is development etc. anywhere in the United Kingdom. intended to level up the divisions of society within the Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]: My Lords, I union and to help. rise to move this amendment to remove Clause 42 of One immediately has to ask why this clause is the Bill. This amendment and Amendment 69, to needed. The Government have done city deals and which we shall come later and which stands in my have provided money, perfectly property, under our name, deals with two clauses that are in some ways existing constitutional arrangements. Why do they closely related. This clause authorises the UK Government need this power? If they were to provide the funds to spend funds on the huge area of government through the existing constitutional arrangements, this expenditure—indeed, almost any aspect of government power would not be needed. The devolved Governments expenditure. Clause 44 deals with the quite separate of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be question of state aid, and it is very important to keep involved and the spending programmes would go along them distinct. I make it clear in moving this amendment the way they have always gone along, this fund being that I intend to press this to a Division. an additional fund provided from moneys no longer First, I shall say a little bit about the clause. What is remitted to the European Union. Indeed, if it were to it for? The Conservative manifesto spoke of a shared follow the lines of the city deals or its predecessors in prosperity fund which was intended to be a successor the European Union, the Government would negotiate to the European Union regional structural funds. I the other Governments, in the case of the devolved looked on it as something that would strengthen the nations, or, in the case of England, the various regions union by sharing the prosperity of our four nations. and cities, what they felt the money should be spent However, because it wore the word “shared”, it carried on, consider it and make a decision. That is all perfectly with it the connotation that the Governments of the feasible. So, yes, it is a very good idea to have a shared four parts of the United Kingdom would share in the prosperity fund, and it needs no legislation. way in which it was distributed in accordance with the constitutional arrangements in place. 3pm That such a fund would be greatly welcomed does The third question that one needs to briefly touch not need to be stated. There are parts of the UK—and on is: what is the position at the moment? As my noble being here in Wales it is evident—that are far poorer and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead pointed than other parts of the United Kingdom, and investment out in Committee,paragraph 4(1) of Part III of Schedule 5 is needed. Of course, we need to look carefully and in to the Scotland Act 1998 made it clear that the powers a structured way at how they are to be dealt with. I of think we have—and I shall come to this later—some “giving financial assistance to commercial activities for the purpose guidance published this afternoon in the Red Book, at of promoting or sustaining economic development or employment” box 3.1 on page 37. It is convenient for me to deal with were not reserved but were within the devolved that when I come to deal with the role of the devolved competence. The same is true in Scotland and Northern Governments. Ireland. It is therefore plain that the purpose of Clause There is one thing I ought to say—and I hate that 42 is to cut across the powers of the devolved Governments this is something that will not come to pass.In Committee, to provide financial assistance in areas such as economic the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, development and commercial activities, though there drew our attention to another term. She pointed out are wider purposes. that in the European Union there were rules about Now we come to the critical question four: how funds allocated for the remediation of poverty and for does this relate to the devolution schemes? In Committee equalling people up which had been made available to the Minister sought to reassure the House that the parts of the United Kingdom, including Wales. She Government had an intention to work with the devolved pointed out that there would be detailed rules, and Administrations. She said: that Europe operated detailed rules. However, this “This power, in addition to existing powers, will allow the UK shared prosperity fund still has no detailed rules, Government to complement and strengthen the support given to despite what is said in box 3.1, to which I have referred. citizens in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, without taking She pointed out that the Americans have a term, pork away devolved Administrations’responsibilities”.—[Official Report, barrelling, for this kind of fund. I would like to 2/11/20; col. 596.] 277 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 278

She added, although I do not think that I need quote not democracy as I have known it. It is, in effect, her at length, that this was all to be done by working giving legislative underpinning to the now discredited with the devolved Governments. It appears from what principle of “Westminster knows best”. was said that it was intended that this power would be My eighth question is: is it efficient and effective to exercised in co-operation with and dealt with through proceed in this way? The answer must be no. This is the devolved Administrations, but of course there is where I return to the fear expressed by the noble nothing in the clause in the Bill to say so. It is also Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The current plain that the power is being taken because the position, where the Government of Wales discuss and Government want additional powers to cut across the agree how funds are to be used—either in respect of expenditure. So it plainly affects the devolution schemes. city deals with the Government in London or, as This is now very much clearer from box 3.1. I am regards the European funding, with the Commission—is sure noble Lords will not mind me referring to a that you have one overall policy,which is then administered document that has only just been published and which and developed as a joint policy. One can see now that they may not have in front of them. There is not one this clause is intended to provide divergence, to show word in box 3.1, which purports to explain how this that with cash there is a different way of doing things, works, about the involvement of the devolved and maybe to provide that cash, as one sees happening Governments. The box says that the fund so much in the US, where it is thought to be to the “will operate UK-wide, using the new financial assistance powers electoral advantage of those providing the money. in the UK Internal Market Bill”. It therefore seems to me that this clause, which is It has one common theme with the European funding now much clearer as a result of box 3.1 in the Red Book, because it says: should not be in the Bill. If the clause had provided in terms that all this was to be done in conjunction with “Investments and programmes will display common branding.” the devolved Governments then that would be quite a Being in Wales, one is quite used to seeing what was different matter, but it does not. I will seek to press this done by the European Union; now, one assumes, that amendment to a Division to remove this clause, which will be substituted by seeing what is being done by the is so destructive of our current scheme of devolution UK Government. From going through what is in and hence to our union. I beg to move. box 3.1, it is quite clear that this is to be a UK Government-run scheme dealing directly, with not a The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con): I should word about the devolved Administrations. One can inform the House that if Amendment 64 is agreed to, say quite safely, now that box 3.1 has been published, Amendments 66 and 67 cannot be called. that this cuts right across the current schemes of devolution. The fifth question is: will it do so? The Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My Lords, it is a answer to that, again, is plainly yes; as I read it in box genuine pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. 3.1, that is now clear. I admire how thoroughly he outlined his amendment, Before having the benefit of that, I was able to read to which I have added my name. I inform the House what the Prime Minister had said, as reported in the that I believe Amendment 68 in my name is consequential Financial Times, about the intention vis-à-vis Scotland. to Amendment 64, so if Amendment 64 is agreed to by However, never being entirely comfortable about relying the House then I will move Amendment 68. on a report in a newspaper that could be said to have As the noble and learned Lord concluded his remarks, taken remarks out of context, I had a look and found he hit on a fundamentally important point, about something else. I looked for, and was provided with, which we raised concerns in Committee and earlier, an article written by the Secretary of State for Wales which have been reinforced by the Chancellor’sStatement last week in the Telegraph. By the Telegraph, I do not today. Both before and during Committee, the concern mean the Western Telegraph, the long-established and was that the Government sought these financial powers excellent paper that circulates in Pembrokeshire and to override one of the core elements of devolution: west Carmarthenshire, but the Daily Telegraph, a paper that expenditure on devolved areas in our devolved that is much read here in the valleys of south Wales. In nations should be taken by the bodies accountable to it the Secretary of State said: them for those policy areas. As a member of five years’ “In the past week I’ve been meeting local authorities across standing of the Finance Committee in the Scottish Wales. They’re all hungry to play a greater role in smarter investment Parliament, I know that that spending would come of this funding—distributing it to those best able to target the with agreed policy platforms, financial strategies and a money to projects that will benefit their communities most.” degree of accountability. It is clear that this funding is designed to bypass the The Government, I think, believe that the people devolved Governments. The sixth question is: is this a owe loyalty to those who spend the money, and therefore return to “Westminster knows best”? Undoubtedly it the main priority is to identify the source of the is. I had hoped that that thought had died, but it is money—not how it is delivered and not the accountability plainly very much alive. for it. However, as the noble and learned Lord raised, The seventh question is: is this democratic? As it can the Minister clarify whether that is the case as she stands, it plainly is not; it strikes at the very heart of responds to the debate on these amendments? the devolution settlements and the choices that the If the Government have indeed announced their people in Wales are entitled to make in their coming intention to override the devolution settlement and to election. It will therefore enable the UK Government use this Bill to deliver spending on devolved areas to spend funds in the way that they think best but without the agreement of the devolved Administrations, which the people of Wales may have rejected. That is that will indeed confirm the fears that we outlined, 279 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 280

[LORD PURVIS OF TWEED] 3.15 pm both at Second Reading and in Committee. I hope I jotted down in my notes before this debate that I that the Minister will be able to say clearly that that is hoped that the Government would bring forward not the case, but I fear from the announcement that proposals that could be introduced in the Commons, has been made today that it is. so that if this amendment is passed and we take out The concern started because we had seen very little Clauses 42 and 43, we would be able to see at least consultation with the devolved Administrations—or some clarity as to how the Government intend to indeed English local authorities—on the spending deliver on the replacements for the funding mechanisms powers that were to be in this Bill, and we had not as a result of consultation. The announcement today been given any indication that these powers had been is alarming. I hope that the Minister can reassure me the result of consultation. There had been consultation that that is not the case and that, if these clauses are on the replacement of EU structural funds, and that taken out, the Government will recognise that they consideration was fairly extensive. But there was a should bring back proposals. mismatch between the consultation on how to repatriate If there is a case for powers necessary to deliver the the structural funds and the powers under this Bill, expenditure, and which do not already exist—although which are catch-all. Not only that, there surely could I have indicated that, in many respects, they do and not have been consultation based on the manifesto have worked perfectly well—let the Government bring commitment of the Government, which was to replace it forward. But this clause is not the case, as the noble those funds with a skills fund—that was in the and learned Lord indicated. I hope that the Minister Conservative Party manifesto. So the powers that has listened and will be clear in her winding up. If that seem to be indicated go far beyond what the manifesto is not the case, the House will be justified in removing itself said, and indeed the results of the consultation these clauses at this stage, effectively forcing the on what the structural funds should be. Government to come back and bring forward their There is no reference in the Bill to what the delivery proposals for us to consider them further. mechanism would be. The noble and learned Lord Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]: My Lords, it indicated quite clearly that, under the previous scheme— is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis where, I remind the House, 76% of all European of Tweed, who has repeatedly shone a light into dark investment had been allocated to the member states—it corners of this Bill, and to follow my noble and was to be managed through the devolution settlement, learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. and that management was through our existing I strongly support Amendment 64 and Amendment 65, frameworks.The current multiannual financial framework, to which I have put my name. It has become increasingly from 2014 to 2020, which is coming to an end, was a apparent that Clause 42 would enable the Government UK partnership agreement. It gave granular detail— to work around, rather than work with, the devolved 373 pages of it—of the fund: where it was going, the Governments, in particular replacing the regional administration of it, how it was administered and how development funding, which has been so significant complementarity would be secured between the legitimate here in my own country, Wales, in addressing endemic devolved policy areas. The Government have indicated problems such as economic inactivity and lack of that that approach is no longer fit for purpose because skills. After all, the Government can already provide that was the European structural funds. Before we see funds to support devolved matters, providing they do announcements at a political level about the political so in partnership with the elected Governments. intention, surely it is right that the Government publish the respective replacement process. In that surprising article last week in the Daily Telegraph, already referred to, the Secretary of State My party on these Benches and I, as a former claimed: Member of the Scottish Parliament, have never been “For the first time, this money will be able to be spent by people opposed, since devolution, to the UK Government who have been directly voted for by the people of Wales. People supporting schemes within Scotland. But that was who know the local communities best, and who can develop under a recognition that it was linked to the correct coherent proposals that are aligned with broader UK-wide priorities.” competences of the UK Government. For example, in It is astonishing that this Government seem to have 2018, the UK Government supported the Edinburgh ignored the group of stakeholders endorsed by the Fringe Festival in supporting artists to promote the Welsh Local Government Association and the majority United Kingdom around the world in one of the of its members, convened—but not commanded—by world’s premier cultural events. Local to home in my those directly elected to the Welsh Senedd to develop a area, the wonderful Common Ridings used to be very framework for regional investment to determine the familiar with receiving support from the local authority, spending priorities for this funding. the Scottish Government and the UK Government. But of course we now have the Chancellor’s statement The point is not that the UK Government should and can see in box 3.1, as referred to by my noble and be restricted from supporting reserved areas in the learned friend Lord Thomas, the heads of terms of devolved countries, but that the policies for delivery of the UK shared prosperity fund. It states, with reference the replacement of the structural funds should be to additional funding in 2021, that the Government done under an agreed process. That agreed process will provide such funding to communities using the seems to be set on its head now, with the Government new financial assistance powers in this Bill. This seems believing that they will deliver the programmes, regardless to bypass the elected Welsh Government by inviting of consultation, regardless of agreement and, more local authorities to directly bid to central government. worryingly, regardless of an agreed framework for Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether I have how these funds can be delivered. understood correctly or not. 281 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 282

I am afraid this Government’s record is to spend on revolves around the linked questions of what replaces things that have always been the Government’s the European regional funding, of which Wales has responsibility. Think of the rail infrastructure: the been a major beneficiary over the past few decades, electrification of the Great Western main route was and who controls the expenditure priorities for any cut short at Cardiff, despite all the arguments in replacement funding coming from the UK Treasury. favour of extending west. Then there are major energy The need for this amendment can be properly projects, such as the tidal lagoon or broadband, where appreciated only if it is considered in the context of the Welsh Government had to invest huge funds, the immense benefit Wales has secured from the European including from the EU—which the Minister seems to Regional Development Fund and the European Social loathe—to make good the underinvestment by Whitehall. Fund over the past two decades. Wales is not the only Some suggest that this looks deliberately timed to be part of the UK that has benefited; Scotland, Northern before the elections to the Senedd and the Scottish Ireland, Cornwall, Merseyside and South Yorkshire Parliament, and to drive a wedge through the devolved have also received significant investment. However, it nations’ability to consider their whole-population needs. has been Wales—in particular, the area known as West The history of the £3.6 billion towns fund, which relied Wales and the Valleys—that has received the most on Ministers selecting which towns would receive funding, significant level of investment. There is a good reason does not inspire confidence.The National Audit Office and for this or, I should say, an understandable reason, for the Public Accounts Committee were not convinced by it is bad news, not good news: West Wales and the the rationale behind these choices. The committee said: Valleys, the area which includes most of the old coal “The justification offered by ministers for selecting individual mining, slate quarrying and marginal land farming in towns are vague and based on sweeping assumptions. In some cases, towns were chosen by ministers despite being identified by Wales, is, sadly, one of the poorest regions in the entire officials as the very lowest priority (for example, one town selected European Union. The GDP per head of population in ranked 535th out of 541 towns).” this area has been below 75% of the EU average. We The Minister may try to provide reassurance that were entitled to European funding due to persistent, this Government would not use the powers in Clause 42 long-term economic poverty,which the UK Government to undermine the political priorities of the elected had, for most of the 20th century,failed to address—and Government in Wales. But once on the statute book, certainly failed to eradicate. this clause would open the way for future Governments The system utilised by the European Union established of any colour to ride roughshod over an elected devolved the criteria, framework and ground rules of the funding Government. Clause 42 undermines the devolution programme, each round of which lasted seven years. settlement, which has functioned well for the last two The Welsh Government put forward their proposed decades. The clause should be removed. investment programme, which had to be agreed with Amendment 65 is an intelligent and thoughtful the EU authorities in Brussels. The Welsh Government proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of provided matched funding, which had to be additional Balmacara, to depoliticise the allocation of funding to to the normal spending budgets. That principle of replace the EU structural funds to reflect economic additionality caused some controversy in the early and social need, not political expediency. It gives an days, with the UK Treasury reluctant to make additional appropriate role to the devolved Governments, while funds available until it was instructed to do so by the recognising that this is UK funding designed to level EU regional commissioner—one Michel Barnier, God up regions with weaker economies in line with the bless him. Government’s own declared aspirations. If the Minister is unable to accept Amendment 64 and remove the The detailed rollout of the programme was, and offending clause in its entirety, I call on the Minister to still is,overseen by WEFO—the Welsh European Funding settle for this compromise amendment, which will Office. The funding has been used for a range of projects, allay suspicions that the Government want to manipulate two of which I was involved in: the creation of the regional funding for their own ends rather than address Galeri performing arts centre in Caernarfon and the objective, clear economic priorities. management centre of the business school of Bangor University,both assisted by some £6 million of European Lord Wigley (PC) [V]: My Lords, I am pleased to funding. They could not have gone ahead without it. support Amendment 64, moved by the noble and learned Both projects have been tremendously successful, as I Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, to leave out Clause 42. know both the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and I agree with him and with the noble Baroness,Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, can testify. in her pertinent comments in support of that amendment. The third round of this European programme is If, however,we do not succeed in removing this provision still running. For the period 2014-2020, the operational from the Bill or succeed with Amendment 65, the programme is worth some £3 billion to Wales. At the Bill most certainly needs to be amended to meet the time of the Brexit referendum, leave campaigners stressed widespread criticism, expressed in the devolved legislatures repeatedly that the funding coming from Brussels and, only last Friday, in the Western Mail—if I may would be replaced in full—I repeat, replaced in full—by quote it rather than the Telegraph—which stated in its money from the Treasury in London. I well remember, editorial’s headline: as I am sure many noble Lords do, being told that the “This plan is a direct threat to devolution.” funding emblazoned on that Brexit battle bus—the And it is just that. claimed Brexit bonus of £350 million per week—would, I wish to speak to Amendment 67 in my name, which in just a fortnight, fund the annual replacement cost of addresses the issue at the heart of the Welsh Government’s the European Regional Development Fund and the misgivings and those of my party, Plaid Cymru. It European Social Fund money coming to Wales.Of course, 283 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 284

[LORD WIGLEY] 3.30 pm we were told that the Welsh Government would be Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): My Lords, I fully in control of its use. Those were the promises preface my remarks by saying that what will replace made, on which basis Wales—regrettably, to my mind— the European structural funds is a matter of interest voted to leave the European Union. The time has not only to the devolved Administrations but to the come to redeem those promises, and Amendment 67 regions, such as Yorkshire, as well. I was fairly agnostic facilitates that commitment. about this group of amendments before the debate Amendment 67 seeks to establish the principles that commenced but now I think that the noble and learned will safeguard the funding coming to Wales and, likewise, Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the other to Scotland and Northern Ireland from funds denoted noble Lords who tabled these amendments have done in Part 5 of the Bill. Specifically, the amendment the House a great service. provides that funding should reflect need, not some ad In the briefing on the spending review, the emphasis hoc arbitrary criteria, nor a Barnett-type formula, now appears to be much more on UK-wide spending. which has been repeatedly condemned by committees It states: of this House yet was used again today in another “The Spending Review takes advantages of our departure place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Autumn from the EU to benefit the union. We will ramp up funding, so that total domestic UK-wide funding will at least match EU Statement. Funding on a needs-based distribution, receipts … for the introduction of the UK Shared Prosperity related to the GDP per head of population, would be Fund, we will provide additional UK funding to support our the basis.In that way,it respects the pattern of distribution communities to pilot programmes and new approaches. We will of European regional funding—a pledge made during also deliver £1.1 billion to support farmers in Scotland, Wales the referendum. Amendment 67 requires the Minister and Northern Ireland, £20 million to support fisheries—and we to bring forward a needs-based formula to be approved will build one freeport in each part of the UK.” by order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, It goes on to say that the spending review is UK-wide and provides for the Minister to secure the agreement and refers to the UK shared prosperity fund and the of the devolved Governments to the content of that shared rural network. Although I welcome the funding order. The amendment also proposes that each annual that has been announced, it is incumbent on us today figure be presented as part of a three-year rolling to find out whether, in the words of the noble Baroness, programme,to ensure that coherent, long-term investment Lady Finlay, the Government are now working around programmes can be secured and the money is not the devolved Administrations rather than with them. frittered away on short-term fixes. I am particularly concerned with one aspect relating to economic development, which I hope is relevant to We have heard a lot during the passage of the Bill this group of amendments. England and Defra have about the fears in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast of a clearly stated that they are committed to phasing out power grab by the UK Government, taking away from direct payments to farmers from 2021, but the new the devolved Governments powers they currently enjoy. system involving an environmental land management The Government respond, of course, that there is no scheme will not be in place until 2024. As I understand such power grab and the devolved Governments will it, however, the Scottish Minister has announced that retain the powers they currently exercise. This amendment direct payments to farmers will be retained for the puts those assertions to the test. Either the devolved foreseeable future. That begs the question of what the Governments retain the power to determine capital impact on economic development will be for English expenditure projects in their territories, or they do not. farmers as opposed to Scottish farmers and whether If they do not, it will be a flagrant violation of the that will potentially distort the market between England commitments made during the Brexit referendum and and Scotland. That would seem to flout the principles the last general election. If the Government insist on of mutual recognition and non-discrimination, which retaining the rights to impose capital expenditure projects we have heard so much about during the Bill’s passage. on and in Wales, it will set alarm bells ringing. There I welcome this debate. I am particularly supportive have been press reports of projects such as the construction of Amendments 64 and 67, both of which have been of reservoirs in Wales, which is an incendiary topic, spoken to so eloquently by their authors. I urge my given our experience over the past century. noble friend the Minister to say how the payments Of course, there may be joint projects of mutual under the shared prosperity fund will be distributed. interest, but those must be negotiated by the respective Obviously, I would add a rider that Yorkshire would Governments,not imposed by Westminster and Whitehall. like to have its fair share of that fund, but it is The days of imperial diktat have long since gone; if incumbent on my noble friend to state whether we are there was one dimension which could trigger an avalanche departing from what we have become accustomed to of support for the independence movements, it would under devolution or whether this is simply a red herring. be such an approach by Westminster. It is my fear that this Bill, without amendment along the lines that I Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]: My Lords, I support propose, heralds such a retrograde step—a rolling-back Amendment 64, which seeks to remove Clause 42 of the freedom we have enjoyed within a European from the Bill. I thank the noble and learned Lord, context and its replacement by Westminster central Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for tabling such an important direction of the sort that Wales suffered in the bad amendment and for his excellent explanation and analysis old days before devolution. Amendment 67 is in the of its intent. interest of establishing a stable harmony between the Clause 42 empowers the UK Government to provide nations of the UK and I urge the Government to financial assistance for economic development in any accept it. area of the UK. At the outset, I want to make it clear 285 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 286 that I have absolutely no objection to the UK Government rights to vote in Senedd elections; importantly, it making investments for economic development in supported voter participation by paving the way for Wales—nor, I believe, would anyone else in Wales. It is automatic voter registration. the intrusion into devolved powers that is so offensive. I must admit, I am surprised that, after listening to Those of us who live in the Objective 1 area of West concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord in Wales and the Valleys understand that our economy is Committee and hearing the support for his stance weaker than those in other areas of the UK and that from other noble Lords, the Government have not we live in one of the poorer regions of Europe. We have come back on Report with an amendment of their appreciated the EU’s investment in the past 20 years; own that recognises and ameliorates the impact of this for example, the investment in the A55, which provides clause on the devolved Parliaments. such a vital transport link across north Wales, and the In a Bill about the regulation of the UK internal projects that we have seen come to fruition under the market, this clause and its assault on the devolution rural development fund. settlements has no place, and I support Amendment 64 In my contributions on Second Reading and in to remove it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord Committee, I said that investment in our region is will be minded to call a Division on the amendment. If desperately needed—it was before we received Objective he does, he will have the support of these Liberal 1 funding and it will be when it ends—but this clause Democrat Benches. gives the Government extraordinary powers to act in areas of devolved competence and in areas where the EU structural funds have never operated. It is extremely disappointing that, throughout this clause, there is no Lord Naseby (Con): My Lords, I will speak first to mention of consultation, joint planning of schemes, government Amendment 66, on how the power in joint programmes of work or joint management of Section 42 will be used. There is a very welcome projects—all examples of the collaborative approach statement that there is to be an annual report, which to investment programmes initiated by the EU that we can be fully debated in Parliament. We had some have become used to. There appears to be no clear discussions about this in Committee, and this amendment setting of objectives, other than, I suspect, that the is very welcome. Government’s prime objective is to see projects in the Turning to Amendment 64, I hope that the noble UK—in the Prime Minister’s words—emblazoned with and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, will not find it the union flag. I have no problem with that either. In offensive if I allude to the fact that I used to own West Wales and the Valleys we are used to seeing EU ferrets. Ferrets are beautiful animals, very ingenious blue flags or plaques on projects. They are an indication and very inquisitive—but of course they have one that the needs of our area have been recognised, and failing. Sometimes they succeed in catching or flushing so it would be with the union flag. out rabbits, but quite often they turn around, get distracted and think of something far less important. There is, however, still no clarity on how needs will Listening to the noble and learned Lord’s introduction be determined and recognised in the UK under the to his amendment, it was based, according to him, on shared prosperity fund, whether projects will be imposed finding in paragraph 3.1 of the Red Book something or applications sought and, crucially for us in Wales, that he thought was relevant to this debate on Clause 42. what impact there would be on our financial settlement. We still do not know whether a UK Government I am sufficiently brave to suggest that he has perhaps investment in a road-building programme, for example, forgotten what the basic elements of this Bill are. On would lead to a reduction in the Barnett allocation, or the front page, it says: whether projects imposed on us would be financed by “To make provision in connection with the internal market for … loans that require repayment by the Welsh Government. goods and services in the United Kingdom to authorise the provision of financial assistance by Ministers of the Crown in All this curtails the Senedd’s ability to deliver on its connection with economic development, infrastructure, culture, objectives and will have an impact on its ability to sport and educational or training activities and exchanges”. deliver on its manifesto commitments. This is what the whole Bill is about. So here we have Of all the attacks on the devolution settlements in before us an amendment which is a pretty wide-sweeping this Bill, this is probably the most blatant—so much so reversal of that primary purpose of the Bill. A whole that the powers and responsibilities of our Parliaments new concept is being proposed in this new clause, at a do not even merit a mention. It is another example of time when the whole country faces massive challenges the introduction of a new constitutional settlement by arising from Brexit. stealth, as I referred to in my speech on Monday. It is After five days looking exhaustively at the Bill in another item to add to the list of examples fuelling Committee, lo and behold, here we are on Report, and the interest in independence, which, under this UK this pretty revolutionary amendment is put forward. Government, is reaching a level never seen before in For me it is basically pre-empting the role of the Wales. People are witnessing the performance of an Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government of almost colonial Government emanating from Whitehall the day. It does not matter what the colour of the and comparing it with the more progressive Government Government is: in structural terms it pre-empts the and Senedd we see in Wales—a progressive Senedd Westminster Government, setting up a whole new that voted last week to allow councils to change the semi-department, with little oversight and, frankly, electoral system for local elections by introducing the huge costs. There does not seem to be any constraint STV system and open up the franchise for local elections on it at all. In my judgment it is way outside the scope to 16 and 17 year-olds in addition to their existing of the Bill and should be rejected. 287 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 288

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]: My approach more typical of the representatives of the Lords, in his very clear and crisp outline of the reasons devolved Administrations than of Westminster—as for his Amendment 64, the noble and learned Lord, we hoped the move out the European Union could Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to my speech in have been managed once the decision was made. Now, Committee about pork barrelling. The noble and learned 36 days from the end of the transition period, with the Lord helpfully informed us about box 3.1 in the Red nation in a state of great uncertainty, let us learn from Book, which I have not yet had a chance to read but that experience—and I can promise the Green group’s which seems deeply revealing about the Government’s support for all the moves to try to ensure that power clear political intentions. The smell of roast meat is and resources stay with the devolved Administrations. certainly in the air. Government Amendment 66, offering retrospective Baroness Noakes (Con): My Lords, I support Clause 42 annual transparency, is a slight improvement on the and Amendment 66, but I do not support the various Bill, but so slight that I find the words “slightly better other amendments in this group, and in particular I than nothing” rather hard to get out. Considerably wish to speak against Amendment 64, which seeks to better improvement is offered by Amendment 65, in remove the financial assistance power from the Bill. the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley,which provides I have been very concerned, throughout this Bill stronger democratic control and devolved Administration and again today, at the way in which grievances about involvement. However, that is clearly the opposite of devolution have been elevated into some kind of holy the Government’s apparent intention, as the noble crusade which sees only evil in the UK Government. Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, demonstrated, Noble Lords supporting various amendments on this using their own words. I agree with the noble Baroness, theme have often alleged that the Government are Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that this is also of great playing a dangerous game with the devolution settlement interest to the English regions, whether Yorkshire, and that this Bill represents a major power grab which which I hope will soon have a democratic parliament must be resisted. I believe that the only people threatening of its own, or Cornwall, which has similar ambitions. the constitutional settlement on devolution are those who have set their face against—or at least ignored—the existence and value of our United Kingdom and our 3.45 pm precious union. Many of the issues have already been well canvassed, I have also heard a lot of wishful thinking about the so I will not repeat them, but I will finish by remarking UK as a federation of equal states, which it is not. on the words of the noble and learned Lord, Many noble Lords have been pretending that “the Lord Thomas, who reflected that he and I have different UK Government” is synonymous with “an English views on the union. As a Green, I believe in local Government”—which is also far from the truth. If decision-making, with power and resources going upwards there is a gap or weakness, it is that the UK Government only when absolutely necessary. The best decisions are and UK Ministers act mainly in the interests of the made democratically and, of course, the devolved whole of the United Kingdom, and England gets left a Administrations have far more democratic structures bit to one side. than Westminster. Those decisions should be made by the people affected by them. The Government have been consistent and clear that they intend to act in the interests of levelling up I believe in self-determination, and of course support the whole of the United Kingdom. The actions of my the Scottish Greens’ position on independence. I note right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that last month the Wales Green Party voted that, in in today’s expenditure review are testament to that, the event of a referendum on Welsh independence, the and I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, Wales Green Party that it is a very fine blue book—a Red Book, I believe, “commit to campaigning in favour of seceding from the United is normally reserved for a Budget Statement. Kingdom.” The UK Government will always act in the interests I remember that very soon after I came into the House of the whole of the United Kingdom, and it is —I can date it back to about a year ago—the noble disingenuous of noble Lords to paint a picture of a Lord, Lord Wigley, coined, I believe, the neat phrase domineering Government trying to strip powers away about Wales becoming “indy-curious”. Everything I from the devolved nations. No powers at all are going hear says that that position has moved on significantly. to be taken from the devolved nations. Devolved I know that your Lordships’ House, and the Administrations still have the same powers to spend Government, are firmly pinned to unionism. Despite their money as at present. my different position, I will offer some advice to Clause 42 creates the power to grant financial assistance those holding that view. Seizing more control and across the UK so that it is put beyond doubt that the trying to take back power and resources from devolved UK can replicate the sorts of financial flows that Administrations might seem like a way of taking existed when the EU took money from the UK and control and getting a tighter grip on the nations of the graciously gave a bit of it back to us to use in the way so-called United Kingdom, but the effect is likely to be it decided. In future the UK Government will make the opposite. Squeezing harder will push nations further those decisions about how UK money is directed, away. rather than Brussels. The guiding light will be the So why am I offering this advice if my view is the needs of the UK as a whole, although I am sure my opposite? Because, when the independence move or noble friend the Minister will confirm that there will moves come, I hope that they can be done in a friendly, be extensive discussions with and the involvement of co-operative manner,with the kind of political, consensual the devolved Administrations. 289 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 290

Clause 42 talks about financial assistance but let us in executive functions; Members of the House of be clear: this is simply public expenditure. Public Commons are not. It is incredibly dangerous territory expenditure is sourced within the overall fiscal policies for them to get involved in, particularly in view of of the United Kingdom as set by the Chancellor of incidents that arose in the past. the Exchequer. It will be financed by UK taxation or I understand that the Treasury might have backpedalled UK borrowing, both of which are carried out by Her a little on that, but it shows the thought process of Majesty’s Treasury as part of its UK-wide economic those who constructed the Statement today, which is policies. These are not matters for the devolved intricately involved with the Bill: destroy devolution, Administrations,howevermuchtheymightwishotherwise. open up the pork barrel and give money to your Noble Lords really should be careful what they friends based on the constituency MP. That cannot be wish for. If Clause 42 is removed from the Bill, noble a good form of governance. It cuts across devolution Lords will remove the mechanism the Government massively, whichever way anyone defines it. I have said have chosen to funnel public money into their agenda before that my experiences have been at Defra and to level up the whole of the UK. How do noble Lords MAFF before devolution, then at the Food Standards think that the devolved Administrations will get the Agency, which was a four-nation, non-ministerial kinds of money that used to flow via the EU without department at the time. Whitehall has never really Clause 42? done devolution and never really understood what Of course, the Government have powers, in general was happening. It has taken a while even for the terms, under the appropriation Act to decide upon House of Commons to become clear about the quite and distribute public expenditure, but it is a well-known distinct advantages of devolution. It all went wrong, rule and general practice to take a specific legal authority of course, when the proportional electoral system gave for major expenditure that will be made on a recurrent a majority Government. That is not supposed to happen, basis. So the result of taking Clause 42 out of the Bill but neither, on the other hand, is first past the post may well be that the large sums that the devolved nations designed to give coalitions, which is what we had in expected to receive will disappear. Is that really what the 2010. You cannot base the future construct of the noble Lords promoting Amendment 64 want to achieve? constitution on such whims. Governments come and go and will not be there for Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I again partly ever, but I very much agree with what the noble apologise to noble Lords because I intended to speak Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said: with on later amendments and to support the noble and devolution now under acute and very massive threat, learned Lord, Lord Thomas, on Amendment 69. I will there is no question but that this will push the settle for Amendment 64. independence movements of Wales and Scotland wider and further,particularly in Scotland, where it is stronger. I take exception to the definition of the Long Title I cannot see a solution to it. I think that we are from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Whichever way we heading headlong towards the break-up of the union. read it, it is about devolved matters in the United I will fight like hell to stop that and a lot of people Kingdom. We have only to look at the definition of will. The problem is, keeping the fight in words and infrastructure in Clause 42 to see that it absolutely debate. We are heading for the destruction of our covers devolved matters. His was a bit of a cheap shot country, without any policy announcement, a clear at the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to try to vote or a manifesto commitment. It is being done by imply that this was inconsistent with the Long Title. subterfuge and backhanders. My other beef is one I have had in the past regarding In my view this is the direct effect of the Bill, Wales and the Barnett formula. I have never understood particularly these attacks on devolution. Amendment 69 why the people of Wales, including the politicians, covers the same for Clause 44; they are two sides of have never risen up. Some years ago I was a member of the same coin. I was going to speak about Amendment 65, the Select Committee that looked at the Barnett formula. but I will leave that to my noble friend. This fundamental It was abundantly clear that Wales had been cheated attack on devolution, with the push to break up the for years. If the Barnett formula was based on need, United Kingdom, is a much more serious affair than rather than population, Wales would be on about a has been recognised by your Lordships’ House, where third more than it is now. We told leading MPs about it has been recognised more than in the House of this, but I have never noticed any great kickback. Commons. Weneed to send a signal to the elected House Wales has been short-changed under Barnett for years. that our country, our constitution and the make-up of There is no easy answer to that. the union are under direct threat as a result of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was absolutely bang on in delivering the information from Viscount Trenchard (Con): My Lords, I am very box 3.1 out of the Red Book at the beginning of the pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but I debate. I thought his eight questions were incredibly could not disagree with what he said more. The threat telling. I would use the term “pork barrel”, because to our United Kingdom results from the power grab that is what it is about. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, being attempted by devolved authorities, led by nationalist whose Statement I heard earlier, made it quite clear parties, of powers that were never theirs in the first place. that the spending of this money relied on the consent of the constituency Member of Parliament, although 4 pm I understand that the Treasury might have disowned Amendments 64 and 68, in the names of the noble this since. I tweeted, saying that it is incredibly dangerous and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, for constituency Members of Parliament to be involved Lord Purvis, strike at the very heart of the Bill by in executive functions. Local councils are always involved removing the Government’s powers to make provisional 291 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 292

[VISCOUNT TRENCHARD] of your Lordships asked why this Bill was necessary. assistance for infrastructure projects. Many such projects Of course, there was the political and negotiating need to be provided across the whole United Kingdom posturing that came with Part 5, but I put it to your in a coherent and consistent manner. I greatly respect Lordships that one of the central, driving reasons for the opinions of both noble Lords, but the devolution this Bill is exactly what we are discussing here today: it settlement that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is so that central government can get its hands on this talked about is different from one that properly preserves money and administer it through whatever means it the UK internal market. sees fit, because there is no detail on that administration I welcome Amendment 66, in the name of my noble —here, again, I echo the point made by the noble friend Lord Callanan, which seeks to allay the concerns Viscount, Lord Trenchard. of noble Lords about these clauses. I would have Some people called it pork-barrel; I would perhaps expected your Lordships to be pleased that my noble call it a hobby horse. We saw the benefit of the Prime friend has proposed that the Government “must” Minister’s attempts at hobby horses when he was the make an annual report to Parliament. Amendment 65, Mayor of London: we saw the amount of public in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, money that was spent on “Boris Island”, the green pre-empts the Government’s announcement about how bridge and the Emirates wire crossing of the Thames. they intend to set up and run the shared prosperity These are just small potatoes compared to what we fund, which is to take over the functions of the EU could look forward to. structural funds. As my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh In her speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said in a Written Answer on 10 August: characterised those of us on these Benches and in Her “The fund will bind together the whole of the United Kingdom, Majesty’s Opposition as, somehow, thinking that the tackling inequality and deprivation in each of our four nations.” Government are evil in this. I make it absolutely clear In this regard, I think the fund should not be restricted to the noble Baroness and the Minister that I do not by powers that may be exercised by the devolved think that she is evil, and we do not have a policy of authorities to any greater extent than the EU structural thinking that the Government are evil. However, we funds have been restricted until now. do think that the Government are wrong, and we are This amendment is far too prescriptive, and it is, of allowed to do so. Many of the speeches on the Benches course, inconceivable that the Secretary of State would opposite have also been factually wrong on the subject not discuss disbursements from the fund in the same of devolution, and I will correct some of those facts. way that European officials have hitherto discussed However, I will err on the side of giving the benefit disbursements with both the UK Government and the of the doubt, because I do not believe that the people devolved authorities. Nevertheless, I share the concern who drafted this Bill misunderstood devolution in the of the movers of these amendments that there is now way that many of the speeches we have heard today little time before the EU structural funds are consigned have. I believe that there is a very deliberate attempt in to history as far as the UK is concerned, so I hope that this Bill to bypass the processes that have become the Minister will tell us when she expects that the normal in devolved government and, unless we see Government will announce exactly how they intend to actual details as to how this will go forward, this operate and distribute the new fund? suspicion will only get greater. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering told the House that a Scottish Minister had stated that Very recently, the Government introduced the notion Scotland intends to continue direct payments to farmers of the role of local councils. This has come along only rather than introducing something similar to the ELM in the last 24 to 48 hours in relation to their possibly scheme. Of course, this is a slightly different—though getting involved in the process of disbursing. I can related—matter,but it clearly shows why it is so important only assume that it is the antidote to the Prime Minister’s to maintain a coherent internal market in the United loose lips around devolution, but perhaps the Minister Kingdom. can explain what role the Government see in any future disbursement process for local councils—and, if there is The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, talked about “the bad not one, perhaps they can disabuse us of that as well. old days before devolution”. Does he remember that less than 25% of the electorate of Wales supported even My noble friend Lord Purvis set out how the the limited degree of devolution at that time? The noble multiannual financial framework works. In answer to Lord’s Amendment 67 seems to me to be aggressively the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who said that the nationalistic. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of devolved authorities are not having financial powers Manor Castle, spoke in favour of what Baroness Thatcher taken away from them, I say that they most definitely called “subsidiarity”—but I have not heard her, or the are, because they had functions under EU structural noble Lord, Lord Wigley, or other noble Lords opposite funds and state aid within the fiscal framework which criticise the EU as it moves to centralise and harmonise are being withdrawn. fiscal and other powers at the expense of the nation states. I am afraid that the noble Baroness was similarly wrong on the subject of public finance and tax. If you Lord Fox (LD): My Lords, once again, this has happen to live in Scotland, as my noble friend Lord Purvis been a very widespread and high-quality debate. To will tell you on many occasions that he does, you pay the Minister, who has not had the benefit of the soap Scottish income tax, which is set by the Scottish opera that you tend to have on Report, I say that we Government: it is a different tax. Perhaps the noble have reached the point that—here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would acknowledge that there Viscount, Lord Trenchard—is the meat of this Bill. At are differences across this country in the fiscal Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, many arrangements for the people who live in the nations of 293 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 294 the United Kingdom. Those differences arise through I will talk a little about Amendment 65. I was the devolved process, which, somehow, is now being grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for talking withdrawn and pulled back by this Government under about the work done in your Lordships’ House on a the misapprehension that, by being seen to spend this critique of the Barnett formula. He is absolutely right: money, they will somehow become popular. That is if that formula had been replaced by something of a not the way to be popular, and it will fail. The noble different nature, the funding levels in Wales and Scotland Lord, Lord Naseby, spoke about ferrets. My experience would have changed, because of inward immigration of ferrets is that they usually bite the people who are to Wales and external emigration from Scotland. handling them—so perhaps he should be warned. There has been a change in the population levels I have one final point, which is a question that I which has not been reflected in settlements. The system really do want an answer to—it is not a rhetorical does not command much love and affection, let alone question. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised support. the interesting point about how the markets could get distorted. I would like the Minister to explain the role The proposal in Amendment 65 challenges the of the office for the internal market in this. As we have Government to think again about how they might discussed in previous amendments, considerable powers wish to do the shared prosperity fund. If it is not clear, are being vested in the OIM, not least Clause 31 because the drafting is somewhat complicated, it is powers, so can the Minister confirm that the OIM will based on a model to which the closest analogue would be able to investigate the UK Government’s use of the be the Low Pay Commission. Despite allegations to powers that they seek in Clauses 42 and 43 to investigate the contrary, it weighs heavily on subsidiarity and whether this distorts the market? Can the Minister proportionality as the principles under which it might also confirm that devolved authorities will be able to be set up. Under the proposal in Amendment 65, it is request such an investigation from the CMA? the Secretary of State who sets the level of the fund, it is clearly the Government’s funding and their authority Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]: My Lords, to set a level every year for that is not, in any sense, I am going to say much the same things as the noble taken away. What the amendment does is to mandate Lord, Lord Fox, but I will focus a little on my consultation and provide an alternative, needs-based Amendment 65, which has been supported by the basis for judging the bids. As set out in proposed new noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, as well as offering support subsection (11), this approach looks at an area’sproportion from the Opposition Benches for Amendment 64 in of children below the poverty line, low income, economic the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, weakness, the age structure of the population, the and—if it is treated as consequential—Amendment 68. impact of the pandemic and the impact of climate change—something we might want to consider more The last time she joined us, the noble Baroness, fully, though it has also been picked up today. Lady Penn, responded to my amendment on the shared prosperity fund with a very full and useful speech, part I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has kind words. For anyone in the Official Opposition to already quoted. It was helpful to hear, because it was be ruled as “intelligent and thoughtful” is almost too so clear what the purpose behind the new approach to much to take, but it probably rules out any further the shared prosperity fund was to be. Although she may consideration of my amendment. It would not do to have to slightly change the way she expresses it when be seen to be endorsing that, would it? she responds in a few minutes, she confirmed, stressing the collaborative nature of the future, that this would As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, if “allow the UK Government to complement and strengthen the Amendments 64 and 68 are passed, there will be a bit support given to citizens in Scotland, Northern Ireland and of a hole in the Government’s thinking on this area. Wales,withouttakingawaydevolvedAdministrations’responsibilities.” They might want to think again about how do to that That is all good stuff, but she went on to say—this was by looking at this amendment, certainly in the context not quoted by the noble and learned Lord earlier—that of the responses to the now notorious box 3.1. I “the response to Covid has shown how the UK Government … congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, can save jobs and support communities. This could only have on being able to adapt his speech to take account of been delivered strategically and at that scale by the UK Government.” the fact that he could have had only a few minutes to That interesting formulation has been much explored look at that box. His critique of it was spot on. As the during this debate. I do not think the Minister will find noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, box 3.1 is based on much support across the House for that statement. the assumption that the Government will receive the The Minister went on to say: new financial assistance powers in this Bill—it says so “The UK Government are uniquely positioned to level up straight out, at the beginning. It is also interesting that across every part of the UK”. —[Official Report, 2/11/20; col. 596.] this is clearly a top-down approach: That also needs to be challenged. It is the sort of thinking from which comes the “Westminster knows “The government will develop a UK-wide framework for best” process, which has been criticised, and spending investment in places receiving funding and prioritising: investment in people … investment in communities … investment for local decisions being taken against the advice of those in the businesses”. best position to know about them. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, this may lead to follies of the type of There is nothing exceptional or egregious about the the garden bridge and, perhaps, the much-mooted list of things to do, but the idea that there is a bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland, which top-down approach jars with everything we have been seems to be the answer to the Northern Ireland protocol doing in the last 20 years to develop a much more problem. responsive, local environment. 295 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 296

4.15 pm In this context, I will speak to Amendments 64 It trumpets: and 68, which seek to remove Clauses 42 and 43. The “Places receiving funding will be asked to agree specific outcomes noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, asked why such to target within the UK-wide framework. They will then develop a power should be included in this Bill. The ability of investment proposals to be approved by the government among a the UK Government to invest in and support businesses representative stakeholder group.” and communities in all parts of our union, as these What on earth does this all mean? However, it does say clauses provide for, helps to achieve a stronger and something that we might celebrate: fairer internal market. Indeed, this is the argument the “Investment should be aligned with the government’s clean EU makes on the role of European structural and growth and net zero objectives.” investment funds in strengthening the European single Is this the first time that the Government are prepared market. It is right that, as we leave at the end of the to accept publicly that there is a case for maintaining transition period, the UK Government have the right existing high environmental standards and net-zero tools to make sure the whole country can benefit from objectives? If so, why is that not also being applied in investment which strengthens communities, economies the Bill to market access principles and the derogations and connectivity within and between all parts of the UK. from legitimate aims which the Government were dead against only a few days ago. Another point of focus from noble Lords, including The whole approach being taken in this is redolent the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, the noble of what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, suggested was an and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, attack on the devolution settlement and it must be Lady Finlay, among others, was the role of the devolved opposed. This is not the way we do things.Amendment 65 Administrations and other local partners, including is an attempt to think outside the box for the shared local authorities. Let me be clear: this power is in prosperity fund, but it is based on an assumption that there addition to the devolved Administrations’ existing will be a continuation of the way in which devolution has powers. It will allow the UK Government to complement worked. I hope that, when she comes to respond, the and strengthen the support given to citizens, businesses Minister will say that we are wrong about this, and that and communities in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Government’s proposals reaffirm their commitment Wales. It does not take away responsibilities from the to the devolution settlement. Their current proposals devolved Administrations. Rather, the power will enable have exposed a centre that seems unable to listen and the UK Government to deliver investment more flexibly outlying areas that do not feel they are being consulted. and dynamically and in collaboration with the devolved Administrations and other partners. This power grab, and the rather ignoble assertions made by the Minister the first time round, exposes a Wehave taken a collaborative approach to investment key divide between us. Why do all the important things with devolved Administrations already, for example that she identified have to be done from the centre, through our successful city deals programme, as noble when existing mechanisms allow these bodies, which Lords have talked about. The UK Government intend have far greater knowledge of what is happening locally, to continue to work in this spirit of partnership with to spend the resources more effectively? As I said in stakeholders. We will make sure that this new power response to an earlier amendment about the common can facilitate UK government support for projects, frameworks, it is now patently obvious that the Bill is making it far more responsive and responsible for actually about gathering powers, which should be addressing the needs of communities and businesses devolved, to a relatively insensitive centre which is throughout the country. trying to imprison a multinational country composed We have seen how important this can be. Colleagues of vibrant, diverse regions, with diverse histories and on these Benches and in the other place have already needs, into a straitjacket of a unitary state. We can, noted that our experiences of Covid-19 have demonstrated and need to, do better than that. the value of a responsive UK Government. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, questioned the support in this Baroness Penn (Con): My Lords, I begin by reminding House for that statement; I tend to disagree, unless the noble Lords of the purpose of this part of the Bill. The party opposite does not support the furlough scheme power to provide financial assistance supports and the Bounce Back Loan Scheme that have protected the Government’s determination to deliver on the thousands of jobs and businesses across the UK during commitments on which they were elected: levelling up this pandemic. To make sure that the UK Government and delivering prosperity across the whole United can deliver on this ambition for all parts of the UK, Kingdom, and strengthening the ties that bind our I hope these amendments will be withdrawn or union together. It provides for a unified power that not pressed. operates consistently UK-wide—one which will allow for strategic investment throughout the UK, underpinning Turning to government Amendment 66, we listened the Government’s determination to see all parts of the carefully to the debate by noble Lords on this part of UK flourish. It makes sure that we meet our manifesto the Bill in Committee, where questions were asked on commitment to deliver a UK shared prosperity fund how the clause would operate. Through Amendment 66, which allows the Government to invest in communities the Government seek to introduce a requirement in across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Clause 43 to report annually to Parliament on the use Previously,in many of these areas, the EU mandated how of this power to provide financial assistance. This would our money had to be spent, with little say from elected put a requirement in legislation to provide a summary politicians in the United Kingdom. The UK Government on the use of the power for scrutiny by parliamentarians, intend to take a much more collaborative approach in other key partners and the wider public. This is in delivering any funding that replaces EU programmes. addition to the scrutiny role that Parliament already 297 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 298 performs for public spending through voting on the The heads of terms also set out that there will be spending allocations, as part of the estimates process two portions of the fund: one targeting places most in and in line with the principle of the PAC concordat. need to support people and communities to open This requirement makes sure that key partners, up new opportunities; and a second targeted differently including devolved Administrations, have transparency at people most in need through bespoke employment on where funding under the power has been directed. and skills programmes, again tailored to local need. As Any future funding decisions are subject to fiscal events. the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, noted—I hope the Accordingly, the requirement added by Amendment 66 noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who had not seen the requires a summary of the use of the power in the spending review document, will take some reassurance previous financial year. I hope your Lordships’ House from this—the terms also state that investment should will agree that this government amendment improves be aligned with the Government’s clean growth and the opportunity for Parliament to see and scrutinise net-zero objectives. financial assistance provided under the power in Clause 42. We have not taken back control over investment to hoard it in Whitehall or to roll over EU prescriptions I will now discuss Amendments 65 and 67. on how we invest in our local economies. Local places Amendment 65 would mean that this new clause would across the UK will be able to shape investment to seek to establish a UK shared prosperity fund reflect their needs. This means a strong role for local commissioner, whose primary task would be to make partners across the UK. The UK Government intend recommendations for the disbursement of the UK to work with devolved Administrations and local shared prosperity fund. Amendment 67 would mean communities to ensure this power is used to best effect that financial assistance for economic development and that the UK shared prosperity fund supports would be managed and administered through the devolved citizens across the UK. This includes engaging with Administrations. As I have said, this power to provide local authorities and devolved Administrations, as financial assistance is wider than any single fund or well as wider public and private sector organisations. organisation. It will ensure that the UK Government I reassure noble Lords that the Government have are well positioned to deliver financial assistance,following held 26 engagement events across the UK on plans for the end of the transition period, and to replace EU the shared prosperity fund, including 16 events in structural funds. It is crucial that the UK Government devolved Administrations, and that UK government can use successor funds to invest strategically and have officials regularly speak with their counterparts in the the additional flexibility needed to invest across the devolved Administrations to discuss the design and whole UK that this power provides. These amendments, operation of the fund to ensure it supports every part including the establishment of a commissioner, would of the UK. curtail that flexibility.In addition, decisions on governance for the fund should not be made through legislation. Further details on additional funding for next year will be published in a prospectus in the new year. We Noble Lords are, however, right to seek progress on will set out further details on the UK shared prosperity the UK shared prosperity fund. The Covid-19 pandemic fund in the UK-wide investment framework, to be presented exceptional circumstances, and it is right published in the spring. A multiyear profile will be set that our focus and priorities shift accordingly. The out at the next spending review. Government have conducted a one-year spending review The short answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on to prioritise the response to Covid-19 and focus on his final question on the role of the office for the supporting jobs. However, in these challenging times it internal market is no. It looks only at Parts 1 to 3 of is important we do not lose sight of our long-term the Bill and relevant effects, so it would not look at objectives. I reassure my noble friend Lord Trenchard decisions under this power. that investment under EU structural funds peaks next year and will tail off until 2023, with spending in each Given the further details I have set out today, I of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland encourage noble Lords not to press their amendments. remaining higher than the annual average. The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler): My Lords, I have To ensure a seamless transition from EU structural received requests to ask a short question from the funds into the UK shared prosperity fund, we announced noble Lord, Lord Liddle, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay additional spending today in the spending review to of Llandaff, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and help local areas prepare over 2021-22 for the introduction Lord Purvis of Tweed. I call the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, of the UK shared prosperity fund, supporting our to ask a short question for elucidation. communities to pilot programmes and new approaches. As noble Lords have also referenced, we have published Lord Liddle (Lab): My Lords, I strongly support the heads of terms setting out our plans for the shared the Government’slevelling-up agenda but, having listened prosperity fund. to the noble Baroness, they seem to have a fundamentally The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, asked different approach to how this should be achieved whether the spending would be efficient and effective. from what has been a shared consensus for the last The bureaucratic burden of EU programmes meant 20 years or so. We all thought the way to achieve that places have had to wait a long time before they levelling up, economic development and all the other received any funding. Places typically see no investment things mentioned in Clause 42 was through devolution, in their communities until at least a year after the bringing economic powers closer to the people. That programmes have started. The provision of additional was the logic of Scottish and Welsh devolution and funding next year will be quick and responsive; it will the logic of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the be phased in as EU investment declines. Cameron Government, George Osborne, who promoted 299 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 300

[LORD LIDDLE] While I am up and reading the legislation, subsection (2) the northern powerhouse, the Midlands engine and all states: the rest. The Government now seem to be saying, “We “The CMA may receive and consider any proposals that may want to run the show centrally”. Is that so? be made or referred to it for undertaking a review”. Do the Government not recognise that all this talk Can the Minister confirm that the devolved authorities about the EU directing how the funds were spent is are one of the bodies that can request such a review of nonsense? I was very involved with the North West the whole UK internal market as in Clause 31(1)(a), Development Agency; we directed how the funds were rather than the answer that was just given? spent from that agency. Are the Government not proposing to weaken the powers that the devolved Baroness Penn (Con): The noble Lord will probably bodies have over structural funds? Finally, is it not the be unsurprised to know that the advice I have received case, as I have been told—someone made a cursory has not changed in the short time since he asked his reading of the Red Book—that next year the Government further question. I will commit to reviewing that advice; are allocating £220 million to the shared prosperity if any part of it was not accurate, I will write to the fund, which is a far lower sum than was available noble Lord. My understanding is that those reviews under the EU structural funds? do not refer to the powers in this Bill, and whether the devolved Administrations or others can refer matters 4.30 pm to the CMA for review relates to other parts of this Bill. Baroness Penn (Con): I am not sure that the noble Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): The Minister gave a Lord’s first questions cover points that we have not number of examples of how the UK Government are covered in this debate already but, for clarity, this does currently able, under their powers, to fund UK priorities not change the devolution settlements. We are talking across all parts of the United Kingdom. The Government about a UK-wide investment programme that will do not have the legislative powers to spend on devolved work in collaboration with the devolved Administrations, areas within devolved competencies. What powers are local partners and local authorities. the Government seeking to have by January next year I am very happy to clear up the noble Lord’s point for them to spend on devolved policy areas in our about £220 million. That is in addition to money that devolved nations? is still coming through the EU structural funds, which will continue to flow until 2023. As I believe I said in Baroness Penn (Con): The Government are seeking my speech, each of the nations will continue to receive the power under this Bill to spend across the whole of the same level of funding, if not a bit more. That first the United Kingdom in the areas set out in the Bill. year of funding is for pilot projects and to aid the The operation of the £220 million announced at the transition to the shared prosperity fund, which will spending review will start from the next financial year then ramp up and there will be a multi-year settlement and the full shared prosperity fund will begin the year for that fund in the next spending review. after. More detail on how that will operate will be set out in due course. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]: The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said to be careful what you Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]: I thank all wish for. She intimated that, in the event of Clause 44 noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate. being deleted from the Bill, the shared prosperity I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for funding being discussed might be withheld completely. referring to the document published today as the Red Can the Minister state clearly, with a simple yes or no, Book instead of its true colour which, as one sees on whether it is indeed the Government’s policy that, the screen, is blue. I was misled by the heading Google without Clause 44, the funding will be withheld or has for it, which is the Red Book. diminished? However, Google had another use because it took up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and alerted me to the fact that the great and late Senator Baroness Penn (Con): My Lords, I do not think that McCain had a member of staff who would go through I can go any further than what has been announced in Bills before Congress and find where there were pork- the spending review today: that it is the Government’s barrel provisions. He was known as the ferret, so intention to use the powers under this Bill to deliver ferrets do have great uses in politics. the shared prosperity fund. To return to the points made, it is clear from the debate that we all share a number of objectives: first, Lord Fox (LD): My Lords, I thank the Minister for to have a more prosperous United Kingdom; secondly, attempting to answer my final question but I fear that to spend the money wisely; and thirdly, to spend it in a she may have been wrongly advised. Clause 31 states: way that is effective and goes to those areas that need it. We all believe that such spending and levelling up “The CMA may from time to time undertake a review”. will benefit the union. However, there is profound Subsection 1(b) certainly points to “Parts 1 to 3”, as in disagreement as to the way in which this should work the Minister’s answer. However, subsection 1(a) says with our devolution settlement. It seems to me from that such a review can refer to the response given to my noble friend Lord Purvis of “the internal market in the United Kingdom”, Tweed and from the Minister’s speech that only one which is a far broader swathe than the narrow answer conclusion can be drawn from what the Minister is given just now. saying and that these powers are needed not to spend 301 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 302 the money outside the areas of devolved competence Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Macdonald of River Glaven, but to spend it in the areas of devolved competence. Fox, L. L. That is the aspect that fundamentally divides us and is Freyberg, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. fundamentally wrong about this clause. It seems to me Gale, B. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Garden of Frognal, B. L. that, given the Minister’s position and the clarity that Gardner of Parkes, B. Macpherson of Earl’s Court, comes through her statements, this is a direct attack German, L. L. on devolution under the guise of some other words. Giddens, L. Mallalieu, B. Therefore, I seek to press to a Division the amendment Glasgow, E. Mandelson, L. that I tabled to remove this clause, which is so destructive Glasman, L. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, of our union. Goddard of Stockport, L. L. Golding, B. Masham of Ilton, B. Goudie, B. Maxton, L. 4.39 pm Grabiner, L. McAvoy, L. Grantchester, L. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Division conducted remotely on Amendment 64 Greaves, L. L. Green of Hurstpierpoint, L. McDonagh, B. Contents 323; Not-Contents 241. Grender, B. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. McIntosh of Pickering, B. Amendment 64 agreed. Grocott, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. Hain, L. McNally, L. Division No. 2 Hamwee, B. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Meacher, B. CONTENTS Hanworth, V. Mendelsohn, L. Harries of Pentregarth, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Aberdare, L. Bull, B. Harris of Haringey, L. B. Addington, L. Burnett, L. Harris of Richmond, B. Mitchell, L. Adebowale, L. Burt of Solihull, B. Haskel, L. Monks, L. Adonis, L. Butler-Sloss, B. Haughey, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Alderdice, L. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Haworth, L. Morgan of Huyton, B. Allan of Hallam, L. Campbell of Surbiton, B. Hayman of Ullock, B. Morgan, L. Alli, L. Campbell-Savours, L. Hayman, B. Morris of Aberavon, L. Alliance, L. Canterbury, Abp. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Morris of Yardley, B. Alton of Liverpool, L. Carlile of Berriew, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Murphy of Torfaen, L. Amos, B. Carter of Coles, L. Hendy, L. Murphy, B. Anderson of Ipswich, L. Cashman, L. Henig, B. Neuberger of Abbotsbury, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Chakrabarti, B. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Newby, L. Andrews, B. Chandos, V. Hollick, L. Northbrook, L. Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Chidgey, L. Hope of Craighead, L. Northover, B. Ashton of Upholland, B. Clancarty, E. Houghton of Richmond, L. Nye, B. Bach, L. Clark of Calton, B. Howarth of Newport, L. Oates, L. Bakewell of Hardington Clark of Kilwinning, B. Hoyle, L. O’Donnell, L. Mandeville, B. Clark of Windermere, L. Humphreys, B. O’Loan, B. Bakewell, B. Clement-Jones, L. Hunt of Bethnal Green, B. O’Neill of Bengarve, B. Barker, B. Cohen of Pimlico, B. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Osamor, B. Bassam of Brighton, L. Collins of Highbury, L. Hussain, L. Paddick, L. Beecham, L. Collins of Mapesbury, L. Hussein-Ece, B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Beith, L. Cooper of Windrush, L. Hutton of Furness, L. Pannick, L. Benjamin, B. Cork and Orrery, E. Inglewood, L. Parminter, B. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Cotter, L. Janke, B. Patel of Bradford, L. Berkeley of Knighton, L. Coussins, B. Janvrin, L. Pendry, L. Berkeley, L. Cox, B. Jay of Paddington, B. Pinnock, B. Best, L. Craig of Radley, L. Jolly, B. Pitkeathley, B. Bhatia, L. Crawley, B. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Bichard, L. Crisp, L. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Prashar, B. Billingham, B. Cunningham of Felling, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Prescott, L. Blackstone, B. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Jones, L. Primarolo, B. Blower, B. Davies of Brixton, L. Jordan, L. Prosser, B. Blunkett, L. Davies of Oldham, L. Judd, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Boateng, L. Desai, L. Judge, L. Puttnam, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Dholakia, L. Kakkar, L. Quin, B. B. Donaghy, B. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Radice, L. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Donoughue, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Bowness, L. Doocey, B. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Randerson, B. Boycott, B. Drake, B. Kerslake, L. Razzall, L. Bradley, L. D’Souza, B. Kidron, B. Rebuck, B. Bradshaw, L. Dubs, L. Kramer, B. Redesdale, L. Brennan, L. Eames, L. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. Rees of Ludlow, L. Brinton, B. Eatwell, L. Lee of Trafford, L. Reid of Cardowan, L. Broers, L. Elder, L. Leeds, Bp. Rennard, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Evans of Watford, L. Lennie, L. Ricketts, L. Brookeborough, V. Falconer of Thoroton, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Brown of Cambridge, B. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Liddle, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Brown of Eaton-under- Featherstone, B. Lipsey, L. Rooker, L. Heywood, L. Field of Birkenhead, L. Lister of Burtersett, B. Rosser, L. Browne of Ladyton, L. Filkin, L. Lisvane, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Bruce of Bennachie, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Low of Dalston, L. Russell of Liverpool, L. Bryan of Partick, B. Foster of Bath, L. Ludford, B. Sandwich, E. 303 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 304

Sawyer, L. Tope, L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Mone, B. Scott of Needham Market, B. Touhig, L. Garnier, L. Montrose, D. Scriven, L. Triesman, L. Glenarthur, L. Moore of Etchingham , L. Sharkey, L. Truscott, L. Glendonbrook, L. Morgan of Cotes, B. Sheehan, B. Tunnicliffe, L. Gold, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Sherlock, B. Turnberg, L. Goldie, B. Morrissey, B. Shipley, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Goldsmith of Richmond Morrow, L. Sikka, L. Tyler, L. Park, L. Moylan, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Goodlad, L. Moynihan, L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Verjee, L. Goschen, V. Naseby, L. Snape, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Nash, L. Soley, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Greenhalgh, L. Neville-Jones, B. Somerset, D. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Greenway, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Stephen, L. Walmsley, B. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Newlove, B. Stern of Brentford, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Grimstone of Boscobel, L. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Stern, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Hague of Richmond, L. B. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Watts, L. Hailsham, V. Noakes, B. Stone of Blackheath, L. West of Spithead, L. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Norton of Louth, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Wheatcroft, B. Haselhurst, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Storey, L. Wheeler, B. Hay of Ballyore, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay , L. Strasburger, L. Whitaker, B. Hayward, L. Patel, L. Stunell, L. Whitty, L. Helic, B. Penn, B. Suttie, B. Wigley, L. Henley, L. Pickles, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Wilcox of Newport, B. Herbert of South Downs, L. Pidding, B. Taverne, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Hill of Oareford, L. Polak, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Wills, L. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Popat, L. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Winston, L. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Porter of Spalding, L. Teverson, L. Wood of Anfield, L. L. Powell of Bayswater, L. Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L. Woodley, L. Hoey, B. Price, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Woolf, L. Hogan-Howe, L. Rana, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Worthington, B. Holmes of Richmond, L. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Thornhill, B. Wrigglesworth, L. Hooper, B. Ranger, L. Thornton, B. Young of Hornsey, B. Horam, L. Ravensdale, L. Thurso, V. Young of Norwood Green, L. Howard of Rising, L. Reay, L. Tonge, B. Young of Old Scone, B. Howe, E. Redfern, B. Howell of Guildford, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. NOT CONTENTS Hunt of Wirral, L. Ribeiro, L. James of Blackheath, L. Risby, L. Agnew of Oulton, L. Chadlington, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Robathan, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Rock, B. Anelay of St Johns, B. Chartres, L. Jopling, L. Rotherwick, L. Arran, E. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Kalms, L. Sanderson of Welton, B. Ashton of Hyde, L. Clarke of Nottingham, L. Keen of Elie, L. Sarfraz, L. Astor of Hever, L. Colgrain, L. Kilclooney, L. Sassoon, L. Astor, V. Colwyn, L. King of Bridgwater, L. Sater, B. Austin of Dudley, L. Courtown, E. King of Lothbury, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Baker of Dorking, L. Couttie, B. Kirkham, L. Seccombe, B. Balfe, L. Craigavon, V. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Bamford, L. Cumberlege, B. Laming, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Barwell, L. Curry of Kirkharle, L. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Sharpe of Epsom, L. Bates, L. Davies of Gower, L. Lancaster of Kimbolton, L. Sheikh, L. Bellingham, L. De Mauley, L. Lang of Monkton, L. Shephard of Northwold, B. Bertin, B. Deech, B. Lansley, L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Bethell, L. Deighton, L. Leigh of Hurley, L. Shields, B. Blackwell, L. Devon, E. Lexden, L. Shrewsbury, E. Blackwood of North Oxford, Dobbs, L. Lilley, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. B. Dodds of Duncairn, L. Lindsay, E. Stedman-Scott, B. Blencathra, L. Duncan of Springbank, L. Lingfield, L. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Bloomfield of Hinton Eaton, B. Liverpool, E. Stewart of Dirleton, L. Waldrist, B. Eccles of Moulton, B. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. Borwick, L. Eccles, V. Lothian, M. Strathclyde, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Erroll, E. Lucas, L. Stroud, B. Brabazon of Tara, L. Evans of Bowes Park, B. Lupton, L. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Brady, B. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Sugg, B. Bridgeman, V. Fairhead, B. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Suri, L. Bridges of Headley, L. Farmer, L. Mancroft, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Browne of Belmont, L. Faulks, L. Mann, L. Tebbit, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Manzoor, B. Thurlow, L. L. Fink, L. Marland, L. Trefgarne, L. Buscombe, B. Finn, B. Marlesford, L. Trenchard, V. Butler of Brockwell, L. Fleet, B. Maude of Horsham, L. True, L. Caine, L. Fookes, B. McColl of Dulwich, L. Ullswater, V. Caithness, E. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. McCrea of Magherafelt and Vaizey of Didcot, L. Callanan, L. Fox of Buckley, B. Cookstown, L. Vere of Norbiton, B. Carey of Clifton, L. Framlingham, L. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Verma, B. Carrington of Fulham, L. Freud, L. McLoughlin, L. Vinson, L. Cathcart, E. Fullbrook, B. Mendoza, L. Wakeham, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. Gadhia, L. Meyer, B. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. 305 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 306

Walney, L. Williams of Trafford, B. Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]: My Lords, Waverley, V. Willoughby de Broke, L. the amendment in my name and that of the noble Wei, L. Wyld, B. Lord, Lord Stevenson, borrows much from other Wharton of Yarm, L. Young of Cookham, L. Whitby, L. Young of Graffham, L. amendments tabled in Committee and on Report, and Wilcox, B. Younger of Leckie, V. credit is due to the authors of those amendments. This amendment has three purposes. The first is to 4.52 pm take the OIM out of the CMA after six months and set it up independently,using the budget already allocated Amendment 65 not moved. for that purpose. For appointments to the OIM the Secretary of State must consult and seek the consent of Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Department Clause 43: Financial assistance: supplementary for the Economy in Northern Ireland. The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB): The second purpose is enabling, not compulsory. It My Lords, Amendments 66 and 67 have been pre-empted. is to allow the OIM to become the competent body to investigate harmful and distorted subsidies and subsidy races made by any Administration within the United Amendments 66 and 67 not moved. Kingdom that relate to harm within the United Kingdom. This can happen only after public consultation about Amendment 68 state aid provisions, which the Government have already Moved by Lord Purvis of Tweed said will take place, and requires the consent of the devolved Administrations. The OIM will also, subject 68: Clause 43, leave out Clause 43 to the devolved Administrations’ agreement, be empowered to make recommendations to the Secretary Amendment 68 agreed. of State for changes to the tests for harmful subsidies, and to its powers and functions. Finally, there is to be The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB): a general review of the competence of the OIM between Wenow come to the group consisting of Amendment 68A. three and five years after Section 30 comes into force. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the The changes, following the devolved Administrations’ mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that agreement, can be brought about by affirmative regulation. short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone Overall, the amendment solves the problem of the wishing to press this amendment to a Division should unsatisfactory location of the OIM in the CMA and make that clear in debate. gives a vision for the consensual evolution of the OIM in its investigations of subsidy effects. We have already debated, in Committee and since, Amendment 68A why the CMA is not the right body. The mismatch Moved by Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted stems from three sources. First, the CMA is expert in 68A: After Clause 43, insert the following new Clause— matters that are reserved, not devolved. Secondly, the “State aid and the Office for the Internal Market CMA deals largely with disturbances to the market (1) Within the period of six months beginning with the day caused by market participants, whether that be through on which section 30 comes into force, and within the anti-competitive activities such as cartels, or through existing budget, the Secretary of State must by regulations market concentration—which is culturally very different establish the Office for the Internal Market (“the OIM”) from looking at the actions of Administrations as they as independent of the CMA. affect markets in the context of devolution. Thirdly, (2) The Secretary of State must consult and seek the consent the tie to BEIS does not make it neutrally positioned of Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, and the in how it is embedded, or perceived, no matter what its Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland on objectives may be. appointments to the OIM. To some extent this proposal follows the TRA (3) Following public consultation about the United Kingdom’s state aid provisions and with the consent of the Scottish precedent of setting up in one location and spinning Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for off, utilising whatever preliminary work has been done. the Economy in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State Furthermore, if there is to be a body to examine subsidies may by regulations make the OIM the competent body —and it is an ‘if’ that can develop in the light of for— experience—an independent OIM, specialising in the (a) investigating harmful and distortive subsidies and workings of devolution, would seem the right home. As subsidy races made by any administration within required, I give notice that it is my intention to test the the United Kingdom and relating to harm in the opinion of the House on this amendment. I beg to move. United Kingdom; (b) recommending to the Secretary of State and the Devolved Administrations changes to the test for a Lord Wigley (PC) [V]: I support this amendment, harmful subsidy, remedies, the scope of exemptions the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and time limits on approvals; on these matters, and the need to have the OIM and (c) recommending changes in its powers and functions. CMA working at arm’s length. I have spoken several (4) After two years and before three years, beginning with times on the need to have an office of the internal the day on which section 30 comes into force, there shall market that is at arm’s length from all government and be a review of the competences of the OIM. is responsive to the needs and reservations of every (5) Regulations under this section are subject to the nation—Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and, yes, affirmative resolution procedure.” England. I would prefer the OIM to be required to 307 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 308

[LORD WIGLEY] political feuds about restrictions on trade within the obtain the consent of all four nations, but I accept the internal market, it could be very damaging to the wording in this amendment as a significant step in the CMA’s focus, which may take away from the attention right direction. I am very happy to support it and to it gives to its core competition-based work. We may vote for it if a vote is taken. end up throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is also the wrong time to put the OIM into the CMA, The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB): given the significant increase in size as it takes on The noble Lord, Lord Flight, does not appear to be additional activities following our departure from the present in the Chamber and the noble Baroness, EU. Organisations that try to take on too much and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn from this do too many things at once often end up achieving group, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. very little. For those reasons, I support creating the office for Lord Naseby (Con): My Lords, I cannot support the internal market as a separate body. I cannot, this amendment. We had a considerable debate on the however, support the amendment in the name of the OIM in Committee. There are already too many examples noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, because in the United Kingdom of where a service can be it has gone beyond the simple purpose of setting up an challenged, one way or the other, particularly in the independent OIM and has strayed into state aid, with financial services area, where there is the Financial its own version of how that may be taken on in future. Services Authority and the appeal mechanism of the That goes too far. Financial Ombudsman Service. My experience is in the area of what are called Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con): My Lords, I support doorstep loans. There is, of course, a rogue element, the main thrust of the amendment, as I explained in and that must be dealt with, but genuine operators Committee when leading a debate on my amendment, have been servicing that market for decades, including for which there was considerable support across the House. the credit unions and two or three other companies of There is a good case for establishing a UK office for the highest repute. However, at some point the FSA the internal market, but the CMA is the wrong home, may say that what they are doing is absolutely right, for all the reasons that my noble friend Lady Noakes while five minutes later somebody has appealed and articulated so well. The CMA operates with values— the ombudsman says the opposite. notably a deep suspicion of the good business can do We must have a uniform, single agency to deal with. and an aggressive approach to enforcement—that are The decision made by the Government to put the not appropriate to the new office. OIM underneath—for want of a better phrase—the Subsections (1) and (2) of the proposed new clause CMA is absolutely right. This amendment would be a come from an earlier amendment which, frustratingly, retrograde step that would confuse everybody. was not moved, and are on the right lines. However, the proposed subsection (3) is not sensible. If any of 5 pm the devolved Administrations withhold consent for appointments on whatever grounds, the whole purpose Baroness Noakes (Con): My Lords, as the Minister of the new office could be stymied. One is reminded of knows, I am a strong supporter of the Bill and believe President Trump and the World Trade Organization, that it is important to allow the UK’s internal market when unexpected and unforeseen actions by an elected to function, but I genuinely believe that the location of officeholder—in this case, the President—in an advanced the office for the internal market is problematic. I fully and democratic country came close to wrecking the support the OIM itself, as it will be essential to monitor operations of a major component of the global economic the effectiveness of the UK’s internal market. However, order. We would be foolish voluntarily to run such a the CMA is the wrong place for it at the wrong time. risk. It is the wrong place because monitoring the internal It may be argued that it is unlikely the devolved market is a radically different activity from the core Administrations will act like President Trump or that functions of the CMA. To oversimplify, the CMA is this is an issue of the same order. I would retort that, focused on businesses which can and do behave badly five years ago, it was deemed impossible by all informed on competition. By contrast, the office for the internal observers that a US President would act as he has market will not target individual businesses or sectors; towards the WTO. Life can contain surprises, and we its targets will end up being the Administrations of the act foolishly if we unnecessarily set up arrangements devolved nations or their regulators if they act in a that risk being sabotaged. way that undermines the internal market. Businesses trying to trade throughout the UK should be the Accordingly, I call on the Minister to agree to beneficiaries of the OIM’s work, not the villains. Most bring forward an amendment at Third Reading that of the CMA’s battles are fought on legal and economic incorporates proposed new subsections (1), (2) and (5) analysis, which are often big battles with a lot at stake of Amendment 68A, which seem entirely sensible and but a world apart from the kind of political battle in widely supported. I regret that I cannot support which CMA may find itself pitted against one of the Amendment 68A as it stands. devolved Administrations. The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con): My Lords, In Committee, I said that putting two different I now call the noble Lord, Lord Flight. activities into a single organisation ran the risk of that organisation being a jack of all trades and master of Lord Flight (Con): My Lords, I apologise for having none. Having thought about that further, it is potentially to move my timing, but I had to get something urgently worse. If the CMA and the OIM get embroiled in long for my wife. 309 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 310

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con): My important that we do not upset the balance struck in Lords, I regret that I do not believe that the noble the CMA and its functions. The noble Baroness, Lord, Lord Flight, was here for the start of the debate Lady Noakes, is right that there may be an adverse and, therefore, cannot speak. His name has already impact on the CMA, if it is forced to take on something been called. that is not its primary purpose. Thirdly, the devolved Administrations need to be part of the organisation, The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con): I apologise. its process and appointments. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, told me that he was here There are reservations about proposed new at the start of the debate, but that is not so. I am sorry, subsections (3) and (4) in the amendment. It is beyond Lord Flight. In that case, I cannot call you, as you our hopes, but perhaps the Minister will consider were not here at the start of the debate. bringing forward an agreed amendment at Third Reading. If he did, we would support it but, if he will not do Lord Flight (Con): I am certain I was. that, we will support the noble Baroness if she tests Lord Fox (LD): My Lords, the debate on this the opinion of the House. amendment has been relatively short, but the Minister should not conclude from that that it is unimportant. Lord Callanan (Con): I thank noble Lords who The reason why the debate has been short is that it participated in the debate, particularly for their brevity. crystallises points that have recurred since Second This is, I suspect, a simple difference of opinion, but I Reading, through Committee and in various discussions will give it a go anyway. on other groups of amendments, around the basic In previous groupings we have discussed the detail suitability of the CMA as a home for the OIM. That is of how the office for the internal market would be the central point. governed, including the composition of its board, and I am pleased to follow the noble Baronesses, so noble Lords will be delighted that I am not going to Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, whose analysis go through all that again. I have set out consistently in of the concerns around the location of the OIM I this House why the CMA was chosen as, in our view, completely concur with. They conclude that they do the most appropriate body to undertake the new UK not necessarily like the full nature of this amendment, internal market oversight functions. The CMA has an and I respect that point. This amendment is the outstanding international reputation as an independent culmination of several other attempted amendments regulator and is already equipped with highly relevant but, without it, we will not get the focus on this issue economic expertise, necessary to undertake its new that we need from the Minister. Even though it may be functions in the context of the operation of the UK a bitter pill to swallow for the noble Baronesses, market. Moreover, the CMA has well-established Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, we need to get relationships with all the Administrations, with offices somewhere to concentrate minds—and this is the in London, Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff.This UK-wide amendment. presence will help ensure that the OIM will work in the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom. It was ably set out by my noble friend Lady Bowles, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will However, we have made it clear that some bespoke also set out a good case, so I will not point to any more arrangements for the OIM will be necessary,in recognition issues. I simply say that this is a really important issue, of the focus on devolved matters. As provided for in which will colour the culture of the market in this the Bill, the OIM will be able to benefit from the country and how it is run. I had not considered the CMA’s existing expertise and operate within its overall point brought up by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, framework, while having its own functions and powers, that it may also jeopardise the CMA’s current role, including distinct governance arrangements such as which is a good point and well made. This is an the OIM panel and task groups. The Government important amendment to get behind. Noble Lords on have recognised that some degree of separation is vital the Liberal Democrat Benches will vote for this and have developed proposals for the OIM accordingly. amendment when it is put, and I hope that other noble I wish to strongly emphasise that the distinct statutory Lords, who find problems with some words in this objective for the OIM, and for the targeted adaptation amendment, will stave that to one side and consider in the Bill of the CMA’s statutory framework, enshrines that, without it, we cannot change the culture of how this separation from the outset. the market will be run in future. On Monday,we had a good debate on the composition of the board and the role of the devolved Administrations Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]: I am going in appointments. The Government have taken a number to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Fox, as I will not of reasonable and pragmatic steps to secure the go through my arguments at length, because they have appropriate balance between ensuring that the devolved been made so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, Administrations have a real say and that the appointment and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I put on record my process is not held up unduly—that would, of course, absolute support for the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes be risked by the amendment. and Lady Neville-Rolfe, who, while they have comments Finally, I would like to discuss in a little more detail about the detail of the amendment, support the principle how this amendment would seek to propose a new role of it. I am grateful to them for that. for the OIM regarding subsidy control. I recognise It is a simple proposition: the internal market must that the amendment reflects a desire for reassurance work and be seen to work for all and, therefore, must on the enforcement of any future UK subsidy control have buy-in and support from all. It should not favour regime. However,we believe that it risks undermining and one geographical area or country over another. It is prejudging the outcome of the forthcoming consultation 311 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 312

[LORD CALLANAN] 5.17 pm that we have announced. This consultation will inform our future approach to subsidy control, including the Division conducted remotely on Amendment 68A role of oversight and enforcement. Contents 298; Not-Contents 257. The Government have been clear that the UK will have its own approach to subsidy control; we want a Amendment 68A agreed. modern system for supporting British business in a way that fulfils our interests. The amendment is therefore Division No. 3 premature, as it seeks to confer specific regulatory CONTENTS functions on the OIM in respect of subsidies before the wider details of any legislative UK domestic Aberdare, L. Crawley, B. subsidy control regime, including the appropriate Addington, L. Crisp, L. Adonis, L. Cunningham of Felling, L. mechanism for oversight and enforcement, have been Alderdice, L. Curry of Kirkharle, L. developed and brought before this House or the other Allan of Hallam, L. Davies of Brixton, L. place. Alli, L. Davies of Oldham, L. On another point that we will discuss in more depth Alton of Liverpool, L. Desai, L. in our next debate, the Government’s view is that state Anderson of Ipswich, L. Devon, E. Anderson of Swansea, L. Dholakia, L. aid—the EU’sapproach to subsidy control—is a reserved Andrews, B. Donaghy, B. matter.Therefore,the effect of the amendment’sprovisions Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Donoughue, L. for consent from the DAs would be to create unacceptable Ashton of Upholland, B. Doocey, B. uncertainty over the extent to which subsidy control is Bach, L. Drake, B. a reserved or devolved competence. As an issue of Bakewell of Hardington Dubs, L. national importance, it should be treated in the same Mandeville, B. Elder, L. Bakewell, B. Evans of Watford, L. way as other nationally significant areas of economic Barker, B. Falconer of Thoroton, L. policy, which are reserved. Having a single unified Bassam of Brighton, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L. approach to subsidy control across the United Kingdom Beith, L. Featherstone, B. is vital to ensure that we continue to have fair and Benjamin, B. Field of Birkenhead, L. open competition across our internal market. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Filkin, L. Berkeley, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Finally, proposed new subsection (4) would require Bhatia, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. a review of the OIM’s competences within two or Billingham, B. Foster of Bath, L. three years after Clause 30 enters into force. I recognise Birt, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. the need to ensure that the CMA’s new functions are Blackstone, B. Fox, L. Blunkett, L. Freyberg, L. undertaken effectively,but the broadness of this proposed Boateng, L. Gale, B. review is unprecedented and unhelpful. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Garden of Frognal, B. For the reasons that I have set out, therefore, I am B. German, L. Boothroyd, B. Giddens, L. obviously unable to support this amendment. I ask— Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Glasgow, E. perhaps more in hope than in expectation—the noble Bowness, L. Glasman, L. Baroness to withdraw her amendment. Bradley, L. Goddard of Stockport, L. Bradshaw, L. Golding, B. 5.15 pm Bragg, L. Goldsmith, L. Brennan, L. Goudie, B. Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]: My Lords, Brinton, B. Grantchester, L. I thank all those who have participated in this short Broers, L. Greaves, L. debate. Some very telling points have been made, Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Green of Hurstpierpoint, L. Browne of Ladyton, L. Grender, B. yet again, regarding separating the OIM from the Bruce of Bennachie, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. CMA. Bryan of Partick, B. Grocott, L. As noble Lords will know, this is not the first Burnett, L. Hain, L. Burt of Solihull, B. Hamwee, B. amendment to include proposed subsections (1), (2) Butler of Brockwell, L. Hannay of Chiswick, L. and (5); indeed, we had hoped to be able to vote on Butler-Sloss, B. Hanworth, V. that amendment, but the timing did not work. I will Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Harries of Pentregarth, L. not conceal from your Lordships that this amendment Campbell of Surbiton, B. Harris of Haringey, L. was constructed so that we had something to vote on. Campbell-Savours, L. Harris of Richmond, B. Canterbury, Abp. Haskel, L. It is important. The parts that extract the OIM Carlile of Berriew, L. Haughey, L. from the CMA are immediately functional. The rest is Carter of Coles, L. Haworth, L. written so that it is fail-safe—and perhaps, as the Cashman, L. Hayman of Ullock, B. noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, astutely pointed Chakrabarti, B. Hayman, B. Chandos, V. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. out, it may never happen. It does not stop there being Clancarty, E. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. some further primary legislation to make it happen, Clark of Calton, B. Hendy, L. but, of course, there are restrictions on what it is Clark of Kilwinning, B. Henig, B. possible to put in when there are identical amendments Clark of Windermere, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. already tabled. Therefore, this is not the end of the Clement-Jones, L. Hollick, L. road on the wording of this amendment, but it does Cohen of Pimlico, B. Hollins, B. Collins of Highbury, L. Houghton of Richmond, L. a lot more good than harm by inserting it into the Cooper of Windrush, L. Howarth of Newport, L. Bill at this stage. I wish to test the opinion of the Cotter, L. Hoyle, L. House. Coussins, B. Humphreys, B. 313 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 314

Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Watts, L. Wills, L. Hussain, L. Prashar, B. West of Spithead, L. Winston, L. Hussein-Ece, B. Primarolo, B. Wheatcroft, B. Wood of Anfield, L. Wheeler, B. Hutton of Furness, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Woodley, L. Whitaker, B. Inglewood, L. Puttnam, L. Wrigglesworth, L. Janke, B. Quin, B. Whitty, L. Young of Hornsey, B. Jolly, B. Radice, L. Wigley, L. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Wilcox of Newport, B. Young of Norwood Green, L. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Ramsbotham, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Young of Old Scone, B. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Randerson, B. Jones, L. Razzall, L. NOT CONTENTS Judd, L. Rebuck, B. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Redesdale, L. Agnew of Oulton, L. Dunlop, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Eaton, B. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Reid of Cardowan, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Empey, L. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Rennard, L. Arran, E. Erroll, E. Kidron, B. Ricketts, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. Evans of Bowes Park, B. Kingsmill, B. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Astor of Hever, L. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Kirkham, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Baker of Dorking, L. Fairhead, B. Knight of Weymouth, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Balfe, L. Fall, B. Kramer, B. Rooker, L. Barran, B. Farmer, L. Krebs, L. Rosser, L. Barwell, L. Faulks, L. Lane-Fox of Soho, B. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Bates, L. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Bellingham, L. Fink, L. Layard, L. Sandwich, E. Berkeley of Knighton, L. Finn, B. Lee of Trafford, L. Sawyer, L. Bertin, B. Fleet, B. Lennie, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. Bethell, L. Flight, L. Levy, L. Scriven, L. Bichard, L. Fookes, B. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Sharkey, L. Blackwell, L. Fox of Buckley, B. Liddle, L. Sheehan, B. Blackwood of North Oxford, Framlingham, L. Lipsey, L. Sherlock, B. B. Fraser of Corriegarth, L. Lister of Burtersett, B. Shipley, L. Blencathra, L. Freud, L. Low of Dalston, L. Sikka, L. Bloomfield of Hinton Fullbrook, B. Ludford, B. Singh of Wimbledon, L. Waldrist, B. Gadhia, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Borwick, L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Smith of Finsbury, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Gardner of Parkes, B. L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Garnier, L. Macpherson of Earl’s Court, Smith of Newnham, B. Brabazon of Tara, L. Gilbert of Panteg, L. L. Snape, L. Brady, B. Glenarthur, L. Mallalieu, B. Soley, L. Bridgeman, V. Glendonbrook, L. Mandelson, L. Somerset, D. Bridges of Headley, L. Gold, L. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Stephen, L. Brookeborough, V. Goldie, B. L. Stern of Brentford, L. Brown of Eaton-under- Goldsmith of Richmond Masham of Ilton, B. Stern, B. Heywood, L. Park, L. Massey of Darwen, B. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Browne of Belmont, L. Goodlad, L. Maxton, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Goschen, V. McAvoy, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. L. Grabiner, L. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Storey, L. Buscombe, B. Grade of Yarmouth, L. L. Strasburger, L. Caine, L. Greenhalgh, L. McDonagh, B. Stunell, L. Caithness, E. Greenway, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Suttie, B. Callanan, L. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. Taverne, L. Cameron of Dillington, L. Grimstone of Boscobel, L. McNally, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Carey of Clifton, L. Hague of Richmond, L. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Hailsham, V. Meacher, B. Teverson, L. Carrington, L. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Mendelsohn, L. Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L. Cathcart, E. Haselhurst, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Thomas of Gresford, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. Hay of Ballyore, L. B. Thomas of Winchester, B. Chadlington, L. Hayward, L. Mitchell, L. Thornhill, B. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Helic, B. Monks, L. Thornton, B. Chartres, L. Henley, L. Morgan, L. Thurso, V. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Herbert of South Downs, L. Morris of Yardley, B. Tonge, B. Choudrey, L. Hill of Oareford, L. Murphy, B. Tope, L. Clarke of Nottingham, L. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Newby, L. Touhig, L. Coe, L. Hoey, B. Northbrook, L. Triesman, L. Colgrain, L. Hogan-Howe, L. Northover, B. Truscott, L. Colwyn, L. Holmes of Richmond, L. Nye, B. Tunnicliffe, L. Courtown, E. Hooper, B. Oates, L. Turnberg, L. Couttie, B. Horam, L. O’Neill of Bengarve, B. Tyler of Enfield, B. Cox, B. Howard of Lympne, L. Osamor, B. Tyler, L. Craigavon, V. Howard of Rising, L. Paddick, L. Uddin, B. Crathorne, L. Howe, E. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Cromwell, L. Howell of Guildford, L. Parminter, B. Verjee, L. Dannatt, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. Patel of Bradford, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. Davies of Gower, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Patel, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. De Mauley, L. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Pendry, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Deech, B. Jopling, L. Pinnock, B. Walmsley, B. Dodds of Duncairn, L. Kakkar, L. Pitkeathley, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Duncan of Springbank, L. Kalms, L. 315 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 316

Keen of Elie, L. Redfern, B. Clause 44: Regulation of distortive or harmful Kilclooney, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. subsidies King of Bridgwater, L. Ribeiro, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Richards of Herstmonceux, L. Laming, L. Ridley, V. Amendment 69 Lamont of Lerwick, L. Risby, L. Moved by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Lancaster of Kimbolton, L. Robathan, L. Lang of Monkton, L. Rock, B. 69: Clause 44, leave out Clause 44 Lansley, L. Rogan, L. Member’s explanatory statement Leigh of Hurley, L. Rotherwick, L. This amendment is intended to remove provisions changing Lindsay, E. Sanderson of Welton, B. the legislative competence of the devolved legislatures to prevent Lingfield, L. Sarfraz, L. devolved Acts making provision about the regulation of the Liverpool, E. Sassoon, L. provision of certain subsidies by public authorities. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Sater, B. Loomba, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Lothian, M. Seccombe, B. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]: My Lords, in Lucas, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. a way this issue is much simpler because Clause 44 has Lupton, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. been put in with one purpose only: to alter the devolution Mackay of Clashfern, L. Sharpe of Epsom, L. scheme. I intend to move that it be removed from the Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Sheikh, L. Mancroft, L. Shephard of Northwold, B. Bill and, if necessary, I will press this to a Division. Mann, L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. I ought to say from the outset that the regime of Manzoor, B. Shields, B. state aid is plainly necessary, and it is necessary to Marland, L. Shinkwin, L. have one for the whole of the UK, as I will explain in a Marlesford, L. Shrewsbury, E. moment. It is necessary first to say a little about the Maude of Horsham, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. St John of Bletso, L. background. Until relatively recently, the British McCrea of Magherafelt and Stedman-Scott, B. Government’s stated position had been to retain the Cookstown, L. Sterling of Plaistow, L. EU regime and put in place an independent body, McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Stewart of Dirleton, L. such as the CMA, that would police it. Whether it was McLoughlin, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. like the Commission or whether it was advisory was Mendoza, L. Strathclyde, L. Meyer, B. Stroud, B. something to be worked out. Obviously, that would Mone, B. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. not have required any change to the devolution scheme Montrose, D. Sugg, B. because we would have been proceeding as we had Moore of Etchingham , L. Suri, L. during our membership of the EU. Morgan of Cotes, B. Swinfen, L. However, the present Government decided to change Morris of Bolton, B. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Morrissey, B. Taylor of Warwick, L. that, and they intend to use Henry VIII powers to do Morrow, L. Tebbit, L. so by statutory instrument. That instrument has been Moylan, L. Thurlow, L. drafted and is no doubt to be debated soon. It has Moynihan, L. Trefgarne, L. been considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Naseby, L. Trenchard, V. Committee, which has concluded, and I think it important Nash, L. Trevethin and Oaksey, L. Neville-Jones, B. True, L. that noble Lords hear its conclusion: Newlove, B. Ullswater, V. “The House will be aware of the Committee’s concern, raised Nicholson of Winterbourne, Vaizey of Didcot, L. on several previous occasions, that secondary legislation is being B. Vere of Norbiton, B. used to introduce policy changes about important issues which Norton of Louth, L. Verma, B. should more properly be the subject of primary legislation, thus O’Shaughnessy, L. Wakeham, L. affording a higher degree of parliamentary scrutiny.This is another Pannick, L. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. such occasion and one on a subject that appears central to the Parkinson of Whitley Bay , L. Walney, L. UK’s negotiation position with the EU. We take the view that it is Pearson of Rannoch, L. Warsi, B. neither a welcome nor indeed acceptable use of secondary legislation”. Penn, B. Wasserman, L. That is a clear intimation that we should look at this in Pickles, L. Watkins of Tavistock, B. a proper debate on state aid. Pidding, B. Waverley, V. Polak, L. Wei, L. Obviously, that is for another occasion, but if that Popat, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. instrument is passed and the EU regime is revoked, Porter of Spalding, L. Whitby, L. the Government’s position is very simple, and we will Powell of Bayswater, L. Wilcox, B. live under this regime for the next several months—that is, Price, L. Williams of Trafford, B. Rana, L. Willoughby de Broke, L. the World Trade Organization rules will apply. We, as Randall of Uxbridge, L. Wyld, B. the United Kingdom, are bound by them as a matter Ranger, L. Young of Cookham, L. of treaty obligations and the devolved Governments Rawlings, B. Young of Graffham, L. are bound to follow World Trade Organization rules in Reay, L. Younger of Leckie, V. relation to subsidies. Of course, it will be without any direct policing authority, but that is the course that 5.33 pm has been decided on, so there is no urgency about this issue and I will return to that in a moment. Of course, The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con): My Lords, the position could change. we now come to Amendment 69. I remind noble Lords I very much hope that there will be a deal with the that Members other than the mover and the Minister EU, and no doubt there is a prospect that a deal may may speak only once and that short questions of deal with the subsidy regime, but at the moment we have elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press to proceed on the assumption that, first, the current an amendment to a Division should make that clear in regime will be withdrawn, and that we will move to the debate. WTO regime. That is the background. 317 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 318

Secondly, I emphasise again that this is not an They expressed a view that this was a way forward. amendment suggesting that the UK does not needed a Last night the Counsel General wrote in very clear regime. It is perfectly obvious that any internal market terms, and I hope that the letter has safely reached the has to have a state aid regime, just as world trade has Minister and many others. He made it clear that state to have a set of state aid rules, weak though the WTO aid had always featured on the list of common frameworks rules are on this issue. One cannot see a stronger but there had been no progression. He continued: argument for a properly thought through regime of “The Welsh Government has been clear that it would wish state aid than in the recently published paper of the there to be a single state aid subsidy control regime for the whole Institute for Government Beyond State Aid. It explains of the United Kingdom, or at least for Great Britain if the why it is necessary, how it should be done, what should Northern Irish protocol makes this impossible, provided it is co-designed by all the Governments which have to implement it. I be done before it is established and that it should be therefore wish to make a clear and unequivocal offer on behalf of widely consulted on. Of course, there has been a lot of the Welsh Government. If the Government will remove Clause 44 time to do this, but nothing has been done. and agree without prejudice to its legal position to participate in I think it must be accepted that the Government discussions on a legislative framework on state subsidy control, we will commit in good faith to work intensively on such a desire to proceed. Why they want to do so now is framework on a tight timetable to reach agreement within three unclear, but they believe that they have hit a snag, months of the Government tabling a proposal, or in any event by which is the fact that for the time of our membership 31 March next year. In the meantime, we will commit to not put of the European Union we lived with the devolved forward any primary or secondary legislation to the Senedd Governments dealing with all these issues and, as I which in any way touches on the regulation of state aid subsidies outlined in the previous debate, this competence is not until these discussions have concluded.” reserved. Therefore, unashamedly, the Government So there is a plain offer of a way forward on the table. want to use this legislation to alter the devolution That is the second alternative. settlements. Whereas in other parts of the Bill I have The third alternative is to proceed with this clause. I been critical of the fact that the Government are urge noble Lords to take the view that it would be trying to do something by stealth, here what they are quite wrong to do so. At this stage there is no clear trying to do is much clearer. What they are trying to knowledge of what the policy will be. It is not clear do is, if I may say so, not open dealing or being what changes, if any, need making to the devolution straightforward. They are trying to make state aid a settlements. The appropriate time to make such a reserved matter by the device of expanding or extending change would be with the policy properly devised and the competition policy reservation. If they wanted to the powers that are needed. do this properly, one would have expected it to be dealt I urge noble Lords to take the view that tackling all with in a much more straightforward manner. this now, with this proposal to change the devolution The real issue is how should we now proceed, and settlements without a policy by this back-door device there are three alternatives. The first, obviously, is to of altering the competition reservation, is wrong. It leave this clause in the Bill. I will come back to that in would be better by far to work out what is needed and, a moment. The second is to work out a policy and if possible, to proceed by a common framework, because enact it by primary legislation. The third is to use the that will produce a legal regime with no doubt proper common frameworks. I shall deal with the second of enforcement powers across the UK. We should not those suggestions first. put this in at the tail end of a Bill without proper thought as to the context. There is time to do this: the If there is to be a state aid policy, it cannot be WTO regime will tide matters over until a common denied that it would need widespread consultation. If framework is agreed or until there is legislation. I we were to go down this route, the Government would therefore move the amendment and I will be prepared need to carefully craft legislation and bring it before to test the opinion of the House on this matter. Parliament. If, in such legislation, there is a need to change the devolution settlements, that can be in the 5.45 pm Bill so that we know what is required and how it can be dealt with. That is one solution. There is absolutely Lord German (LD): My Lords, I am grateful to the no reason why we cannot do that, because we will be noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, living under a World Trade Organization regime in the for putting forward so much detail behind this amendment, interim and the devolved Governments will be bound which clearly lays out the course of action that could by that. be dealt with and also talks about the way the Government propose to take these matters forward. I think that my Secondly, to my mind a much more attractive way job is to amplify some of his points and perhaps to forward is to use a common framework. I regret that extend them as well. I refer to the offer from the Welsh this matter came up in Committee very late on a night Government, which I presume has also been made by when, as the Minister will remember, we were all fairly the Scottish Government at the same time: that was exhausted at the end of the debate on Part 5. I hope he the indication I received last night, and perhaps the will recall that I then suggested that maybe one way Minister could confirm that this letter from Scotland forward was a common framework. has been received as well. Having the privilege of being a member of the This clause proposes a major recentralisation of Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, I raised power. It is a far cry, for those of us who live in Wales, the question of a common framework with the Counsel Scotland or Northern Ireland, from the cry of bringing General for Wales, Mr Jeremy Miles, and the Cabinet back our laws, because state aid is currently not a Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External reserved power, despite the Government’s protestation Affairs in the Scottish Government, Mr Michael Russell. that it is and always has been. Annexe 1 of the 319 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 320

[LORD GERMAN] well end up in the courts and will certainly amplify the Explanatory Notes for the Bill clearly lays out that it is feeling that the union of the United Kingdom is not not a reserved matter, but the Bill, of course, makes it respected. say so. I reiterate at the start that we on these Benches Yesterday’s letter from the Welsh Government’s want to see a single state aid regime for the whole United Counsel General, which the noble and learned Lord, Kingdom, but that regime has to be to a design on Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to, provides the which all four parts of the United Kingdom have UK Government with a route to a sensible solution. It collaborated. If they are not prepared to do this, as recognises the ability in the EU to have variance in this clause lays out, they will not get a legislative subsidies where there is an identified need. I must consent Motion from either of the devolved Parliaments point out to noble Lords that many of us will remember or from the Northern Ireland Assembly. In fact, in his that this was the case before we became members of letter to the Secretary of State for BEIS yesterday, the the EU. I remember the arguments and debates on Counsel General for Wales said: UK regional aid and regional assistance, and dividing “Even if we resolve all the other issues, this alone”— the areas of the country up where aid could be given in that is, this clause— greater amounts. That historical message was that “would make it impossible for me to recommend legislative there would be differences and distortions; of course, consent to the Bill as it now stands.” subsidies provide distortions, but they were provided That is crucial, because it says something about the for very good reasons. They were proposing to make a relationship that this clause makes between the four difference where the needs were greatest—where poverty nations of this United Kingdom. It is not a way to and economic need were greatest—and so it was provided respect our devolution settlement and, importantly, it in that way. not a way to respect the union we have within the I can say, as somebody who had to operate within United Kingdom. that framework as an economic development Minister, EU state aid policy is established through the Treaty having to talk about these matters with Brussels simply on the Functioning of the European Union, and directly to identify the boundaries, the flexibility, as the UK applicable regulations following on from that treaty. Government themselves say, was great indeed to manage That was in place of having directives that would have that work. I believe we are seeing this clause put the required us to transpose these matters into UK law. In cart before the horse—devising the policy before putting response to the House of Lords report on state aid, the legislation in place is what we are looking for, and the Government said: that is what this amendment does. “We note that in practice the existing EU rules have always All the devolved Governments have made it clear been sufficiently flexible to allow the UK to make innovative aid that they are prepared to work at pace with the UK interventions when necessary.” Government to design a new subsidy regime. I would So the Government do not believe that there has been be grateful if the Minister in replying could tell us how a problem in the way that this operated with the EU, the Government will respond to the offer from the and now they are intent on eating their own words, devolved Governments. I also note that there must be bringing back the rules, converting them into a straitjacket unease on the Government’s side about this clause, regime and not providing the flexibility that the countries since I have noticed that no other speaker, apart from in our union previously enjoyed. They also add that it the Minister, has come forward to support it. would be “harmful” if this were dealt with in any Removing this clause from the Bill provides the other way. opportunity for dialogue and the drawing up of a new A more co-operative and consensual approach is subsidy regime for the UK. As the noble and learned needed. The clause we are seeking to remove assumes Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, we already that divergence will happen, and decrees that there have a replacement in place temporarily until that is shall be no divergence. Blunting and reducing the put back and the regime determined. I do hope that power of the devolved authorities is deemed to be a the Government will accept the offer from the devolved price worth paying so that the UK Government alone Governments as the right way forward and, as a can determine the route they wish to follow in directing gesture of good will, I would be grateful if they would the new regime. Yet we do not know what this regime therefore consider withdrawing this clause, supporting will look like. There is no sign of the detail or the this amendment and, in so doing, strengthening the choices the Government propose to take. relationships between the various parts of our union. What this clause does, no matter what consultation the Government may eventually engage in, is drive Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]: My Lords, I their own agenda—an agenda that primarily has to speak in support of this amendment, elegantly explained support England. That, by the way, is no way to provide by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of business with the certainty it is seeking. In fact, the Cwmgiedd. I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, lack of clarity at this stage prolongs the uncertainty; Lord German, who amplified his points. but it need not be like this. Yesterday, as already referred to, the Welsh We need to make progress on a UK framework Government’s Counsel General wrote to the Secretary for subsidy control. Again, this is another framework of State at BEIS about Clause 44. That letter demonstrates agreement which needs to be put in place. At the moment, clearly that the Welsh Government are seriously committed without such a framework, it could easily be said that to trying to save the union of the United Kingdom the Government are making it up as they go along. What and recognise the need to secure the internal market. is needed is a dialogue, not the “take it or leave it” Their offer to work intensively with the Government is policy that this clause entails—a policy which may clear and unequivocal. 321 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 322

The Welsh Government have consistently put forward Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]: Clause 44 says it imaginative and thoughtful proposals about how to unequivocally: the UK Government, also parading as move the constitutional debate forward. Indeed, in the English Government in this Bill, are specifically Brexit and Devolution in June 2017, the Welsh Government removing from the devolved Administrations their championed the idea of common frameworks, power to provide state aid, by inserting it as a specific subsequently taken up by Whitehall. If I may quote, reservation or excepted matter in each of the devolution they said: Acts. When I said in earlier debates that the Government “From the outset of the debate about our collective future were using the Bill to roll back devolution, the Minister outside the EU, the Welsh Government has recognised a need to insisted that devolved Administrations were being given develop UK frameworks. It is clearly important that no new additional powers. We have already seen in these debates barriers to the effective free movement of goods and services that the Government are using the Bill to sideline and within the UK are created as a result of EU withdrawal. The development of UK frameworks should be taken forward immediately undermine the common frameworks, which have been on the basis of negotiation and agreement among the four UK well established as the basic foundation for the future administrations.” internal market. At the same time, the Bill removes This paper suggests a qualified majority voting any incentive for devolved Administrations to develop system within a reformed intergovernmental system, improved standards. Removing from the devolved where a decision endorsed by the UK Government Administrations the powers over state aid is fully in plus one of the devolved Governments would be sufficient line with the thrust of the Bill, which is a barely to break any logjam, thus addressing head on the issue disguised attempt to emasculate devolution. of one nation wielding a veto. Last year, the Welsh I want to concentrate on how this Bill affects Wales, Government’s comprehensive analysis in Reforming and Clause 44 refers to the Government of Wales our Union championed shared governance, describing Act 2006. In relation to this issue, that Act says: taking responsibility for codesigning legislation and “The First Minister may give financial assistance (whether by policy where devolved and reserved competences intersect. way of grant, loan or guarantee) to any person engaged in any It asserted that activity which the First Minister considers will secure, or help to secure, the attainment of any objective in the Minister’s functions.” “devolution is concerned with how the UK as a whole should be governed, with proper account taken of the interests of all of its In Field 4 of Schedule 5, it lists economic development parts. It is a joint project between England, Wales, Scotland and as one of those functions. Northern Ireland, based on a recognition of our mutual inter- dependence, which therefore requires a degree of shared governance.” 6 pm It foregrounded common frameworks, seeking a common It is important to put Welsh devolution in context. approach, shared delivery systems and joint governance It has grown considerably over the years, but at the arrangements that should be developed on a collaborative start, in 1998, the Assembly did not have full legislative and consensual basis. So, the intervention from the powers. It was essentially an executive body to which were Counsel General is not an opportunistic response to transferred the powers previously held by the Secretary this Bill but the continuation of a patient, crystal clear of State for Wales. In the original 1998 Act those commitment to common frameworks at the heart of powers are listed and specifically include the transfer intergovernmental relations. of a number of existing bodies, including the Welsh Over these three days of debates, Members across Development Agency, which was established in the the House have recognised the importance of these 1975 Act, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris frameworks. The Welsh Government and, I believe, of Aberavon, was Secretary of State. The WDA became the Scottish Government are not arguing to be left alone hugely important under the Conservative Government, to design and implement their own rulebooks for as Welsh industry was hit by the closure of mines and government subsidies. They would be mad to do so. In steelworks. The Act lists its powers as including financial a free-for-all between Governments of these islands to assistance for regeneration and development, the provision attract and hold on to investment, the UK Government of sites and premises for industry,and more.That includes, would be bound to win, because they have much more for example, the provision of support in kind, such as significant financial resources and can set their own land, which is also considered state aid. In due course, budget. Rather than arguing to have an equal role in in 2006, the Welsh Government decided to take the designing a fair system all can work within, they are powers of the WDA into the Welsh Government committing to do this on a timetable compatible with themselves. Clearly, those powers have been operated the one the Government have set themselves and to within the framework of EU legislation on state aid. take no legislative action in this space until at least So that is the legal history of the situation. Now autumn 2021. I will turn to how it has actually been handled in practice. This is surely beyond reasonable doubt. If the efforts I know a fair amount about it because I was there —in to reach agreement fail, the Government will have to the Assembly for 12 years and for three years as Welsh introduce primary legislation to define the new subsidy Minister, then in the Wales Office for three years, regime, subject to the same constraints there are now, during which I took the Wales Act 2014 through this in order to achieve a coherent regime. Wehave repeatedly House. More recently, I have been a member of our been told that this Bill does not diminish the powers of own EU Internal Market Sub-Committee and am now the devolved institutions, yet all we see and hear defies a member of the Common Frameworks Committee. that. This clause explicitly and openly alters the devolution Over the years, I have developed a clear picture of where settlement by adding to the list of reserved matters in the power currently lies, and I have no doubt that the the Government of Wales Act and the other devolution Welsh Government have the power to grant state aid, statutes. I therefore urge your Lordships to support its as it lay within EU rules. Their economic development removal from the Bill. powers are, after all, almost meaningless without it. 323 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 324

[BARONESS RANDERSON] not a straightforward situation of saying that this had Anyone in doubt that the Welsh Government, the been uniquely a United Kingdom responsibility—so UK Government and the EU have all considered that by definition, it is an issue. the Welsh Government had state aid powers should It is also perfectly clear from all speakers that, look at the Welsh Government website, which has a without there being an understanding about the tests, detailed description of what state aid is and the official de minimis levels, the administration and the type of registration process required by EU law. It lists the ministerial direction that has existed up to now—without schemes that have been accepted and registered according clarity as to how all that will go forward—any Minister to the general block exemption scheme, for instance. in a devolved Administration will quite rightly be Among listed Welsh schemes are funding to support concerned about what impact this will have on the superfast broadband, SME development, the Wales economies of the powers that they do have under the Screen Fund, the Development Bank of Wales, a devolved competences. maritime and inland ports scheme, and many more, I just wish to reinforce the point that the letter from going back over the years. Jeremy Miles to Alok Sharma, which I read, made a Youmight wonder why the Government are so keen very fair offer. We share the concern that, without on grabbing responsibility for state aid, because over there being a further set of discussions to seek a the years the UK Government have been considerably degree of common ground on a framework agreement less keen than many other EU countries on using state about how this will operate in the future—which there aid to support industry. Even within the UK, the is time to do, because the Government have indicated devolved Administrations have a more generous record that they are seeking to effectively have a window than the Government have in relation to England. But under the WTO approach, and there is consensus that think it through and it is obvious: power lies where the that will be respected—this is potentially the way money is. Clause 44 is yet another piece of the jig-saw forward. designed to strip devolution of meaningful powers. The UK Government may still retain their aversion to I hope that, although often it may not seem so, the state aid, but by holding that power centrally, it Minister will see defeat as a bit of a silver lining in means the devolved Administrations lose their economic order for him to come back with a more considered levers. approach, to take the Welsh offer and to allow us to consider the Government’s position from a degree of This is a deceitful, centralising Bill—deceitful because, consensus and agreement. I support the noble Lords by sleight of hand, under the guise of promoting who have spoken on this group so far. competition, the Government are unravelling devolution. I think they thought that they would slip it under the radar at a time of major public crisis, caused by Covid Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]: My Lords, and by the failure, even at this late stage, to get a Brexit like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I agree with the case deal. However, by the size of the votes here today, the that has been made so well by the previous speakers. I Minister can report back that it has not worked and put my name to the amendment put forward by the we have noticed. noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and we would There is, as noble Lords have explained in some support him if he chooses to divide the House. detail, an offer from the devolved Administrations to It is very simple: we agree that there has to be a work positively together to establish a UK-wide structure UK-wide policy on state aid—or subsidy, if that is in which the devolved nations can participate fully. I what it is to be called. The question that hangs around hope that the Minister will accept this offer with grace but never seems to get answered is: why has it not yet because, otherwise, they are on course for a constitutional been articulated what this policy would be? It cannot stand-off. be a question of timing. This suggests yet another shroud of mystery that surrounds this increasingly Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My Lords, it is a great perplexing Bill. pleasure to follow my noble friend, with the very great It is certainly a novel way of developing policy for a experience and knowledge that she has on this issue. Government to remove policy that is in force and that Given the fact that all four speakers so far in this everybody knows and understands, increasing the group have been from Wales, I thought that, to avoid uncertainty and making it more difficult for businesses. a degree of market distortion across the United Kingdom, However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, there should be a little bit of northern balance. All I wish said in his opening speech, the statutory instrument to do is to endorse the points that they have so removing the current rules—taking us out of the ably made. current system that has been operating for a great I put my name to this amendment, and if the noble number of years—has already been laid and will be and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, presses debated next week, and we will not be able to stop it. it and the House agrees, the Government have an We therefore seem to be heading towards WTO opportunity now to bring back a more considered rules, which are not well respected and do not seem to proposal as a result of some consultation. None of the be applied properly, and there is no policing or speakers in this group has indicated that it is easy. If it organisational structure in which they can be dealt was easy, agreement would have been reached at the with properly. If that is where we are, we would at least outset. It is about being aware that the frameworks have a period of stability during which we can sort out update highlighted that one of the four areas of dispute how we want to set up the rules that will apply to the around where the competences lie with this power internal market and how, if necessary, they are to be being repatriated is state aid. It is obvious that it was policed. This could all be part of the yet-to-be-announced 325 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 326 deal with the EU—and it may be that is the case, there were different regimes to regulate subsidies across because it is clear that this is a significant area of the UK. Ultimately, it could undermine fair and open interest within the negotiations. But without any further competition across our internal market and inevitably detail on that, it is hard for us to speculate. discourage investment in the United Kingdom, bringing However, as others have said, the Welsh Government additional costs to supply chains and consumers. have come forward with an extraordinarily generous The reservation will enable the UK to design a offer to expedite work on a common framework that bespoke subsidy control regime that meets the needs relates to state aid and make a voluntary agreement to of the UK economy. The Government have been clear pause any legislation that would impinge on that in the that any future domestic regime will operate in a way intervening period. That is almost too good an offer, that works best for all UK businesses, workers and and I hope that the Minister has an adequate response consumers.In the coming months, as I said in Committee, to it. we intend to publish a consultation on whether we should go further than our World Trade Organization and international commitments,including whether further Lord Callanan (Con): (Con): I thank noble Lords legislation on this subject is necessary. who have contributed to another admirably brief debate. We are making good progress this afternoon. As I outlined in Committee, Clause 44 reserves to 6.15 pm the UK Parliament the exclusive ability to legislate for The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, referred a UK-wide subsidy control regime. I greatly enjoyed to the statutory instrument that will remove redundant the many contributions on this matter. I particularly EU state aid rules from the domestic statute book at liked the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the end of the transition period. We have laid that to that I should take defeats as a silver lining, which provide legal certainty for businesses, going forward. prompts the obvious response that the Liberal Democrats I reassure noble Lords that we will continue to have been defeated in the last three general elections listen closely to views in this important policy area. and therefore have some experience of that. During these past few weeks of debate, issues about Our debate in Committee on this clause served to specific elements of the UK’s future approach have highlight that, while some noble Lords might disagree been raised, including, but not limited to, the precise on the approach taken, we all recognise the importance definition of subsidies and the enforcement of any of ensuring that the UK continues to take a clear and future subsidy regime. These are all important points consistent approach to subsidy control as we move that must be considered carefully and properly through away from EU state aid rules. The Government have the consultation process that we will have. Although always been clear in their view that the regulation of we are reserving subsidy control, I make it clear that state aid—the EU’s approach to subsidy control—is a we will continue to work closely with the devolved reserved matter. The Government are clear that they Administrations on the shape of any future domestic want to maximise the economic opportunities available subsidy regime. UK Government officials will continue to us when we are no longer bound by EU state aid to meet with their devolved Administration counterparts rules. To achieve this economic ambition, it is important on a regular basis. We recognise the importance of that, as now, we take a coherent approach to the working constructively and co-operatively in this policy system that governs how public authorities subsidise area, and it is in all our interests that a new regime businesses across the United Kingdom. Reserving subsidy works for the whole of the UK. control is the best way in which to guarantee that a The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the single, unified subsidy control regime could be legislated noble Lord, Lord German, referred to the letter that for in future. we received this morning from Jeremy Miles. As far as In previous debates, there has sometimes been a I am aware, having checked furiously with the Bill misplaced conflation between the devolved spending team in my office and various teams in my department, powers and the systems that regulate the potentially we have not received a similar letter from the Scottish harmful and distortive effects of this spending. To be Government. We welcome the Welsh Government’s clear, these are two distinct and separate responsibilities. support for maintaining a unified approach to subsidy Although the devolved Administrations can and should control across the UK. Weagree that the UK Government make spending decisions on subsidies, the wider rules and devolved Administrations should work constructively in which they operate are, and should continue to be, and co-operatively in this policy area, to design an consistent across the whole nation. In response to the approach to subsidy control that meets the needs of intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the UK economy. We have always been clear that it is a I reiterate that the reservation does not change the reserved matter, and that the reservation of subsidy devolved Administrations’ position in practice. They control is necessary to ensure that we continue to take have never previously been able to set their own a uniform approach. State aid is not included in the subsidy control regime, as this was covered by the EU common frameworks programme, so we do not believe state aid framework, but they will continue to make that would be an appropriate way forward either. their own spending decisions on subsidies as they do However, we are grateful for the Welsh Government’s currently. constructive engagement with this issue, and for their The effect of the amendment would be to create offer to find a practical way through. We are keen to unacceptable uncertainty regarding the extent to which continue discussions in this spirit. Going forward, we subsidy control is a reserved or devolved competence. have committed to consulting the DAs on the design That would potentially give rise to inconsistency if and scope of any future control regime. 327 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 328

[LORD CALLANAN] this is not something that the UK Government have For the reasons that I have set out, I am unable to power over—otherwise this clause would be unnecessary. accept this amendment. I hope that noble Lords can It is not a reserved matter and therefore under the withdraw it. devolution schemes it is a matter for all the devolved Governments. Thirdly, it is clear that there is no The Deputy Speaker (Barness McIntosh of Hudnall) uncertainty. The Government are taking us out of the (Lab):My Lords, I have received one request to ask the EU regime, assuming the instrument is passed, and we Minister a short question for elucidation, from the will go into the WTO regime—so that is the regime for noble Lord, Lord Liddle. the foreseeable future. Lord Liddle (Lab): Can the Minister reflect a bit The real question is: are we going to go forward by more on what he has just said about treating this issue diktat from Whitehall and Westminster or are we as a matter for common frameworks? It sounded as going to go forward by consensus? An obvious way of though he wanted a co-operative solution to this problem, going forward is a common framework. I regret to say one that would bring all the devolved Administrations that I cannot agree with the Minister that a common into a common framework. However, at the end, he said framework is inappropriate. It is absolutely appropriate, that it is not appropriate—but why not? He has not because it will cater for the kind of divergence that will given a satisfactory answer to that question. I remember be allowed in the subsidy regimes. This is a matter of challenging the noble Lord, Lord True,in an earlier debate acute importance to people such as fishermen and at Report, on whether the Government had changed those involved in agriculture. We need to know what their policy on common frameworks and were no level of divergence is permissible and negotiate that. longer taking them seriously. I got a very vigorous Finally, a decision has to be made on the role of the shaking of the head from the noble Lord, Lord True. CMA. I moved amendments earlier this week in relation Would this not be a perfect example of how common to the CMA simply because I imagine it will have to be frameworks were still being taken seriously by the the policeman of this regime. But what is it to be? Is it Government, and would it not resolve a real problem to be an adviser? Is it to have a central role? Or are that the Government have had? things to be laid out in a common framework? The Minister talked about unacceptable uncertainty, I therefore say that this clause ought to be removed. but frankly,the unacceptable uncertainty about state aid Get the policy right first. Try it by common framework has come from this Government. Mr Dominic Cummings and let us go forward on that basis. Therefore, I want had one view of state aid, as against the traditional to take the opinion of the House on the appropriate Conservative view. That is where the uncertainty came means of going forward—and the appropriate means from. Now that he has gone and now that he is out, is taking this clause out of this Bill. thankgoodness,wehaveanopportunitytocreateasensible common policy.There is a need for balance, and it must 6.24 pm be sensible.The best way is through a common framework Division conducted remotely on Amendment 69 in co-operation with the devolved Administrations. Contents 315; Not-Contents 230. Lord Callanan (Con): I am not sure whether that was a question or a speech in the wrong place—but I Amendment 69 agreed. take the noble Lord’s point. I think he is getting issues conflated. The common frameworks programme of Division No. 4 course is a programme of work with diffuse levels of CONTENTS power and ultimately it is not clear where regulation Aberdare, L. Blunkett, L. lies. To resolve those matters on a cross-UK basis, Addington, L. Boateng, L. there is no doubt in our mind where the proper operation Adonis, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, of these powers is—state aid, or rather subsidy control, Alderdice, L. B. is a reserved matter for the UK Government. However, Allen of Kensington, L. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. we have said that we want to work collaboratively. We Alli, L. Bowness, L. want to work with the devolved Administrations and Alton of Liverpool, L. Bradley, L. of course, as we have said, we will consult closely with Amos, B. Bradshaw, L. Anderson of Ipswich, L. Bragg, L. them on any new policy that we develop and indeed on Anderson of Swansea, L. Brennan, L. whether legislation is necessary. But, given my general Andrews, B. Brinton, B. support for the framework and the Government’s Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. support for the framework programme, I do not believe Ashton of Upholland, B. Brookeborough, V. that it is appropriate for this matter to be included in Bach, L. Brown of Cambridge, B. the framework programme. Bakewell of Hardington Brown of Eaton-under- Mandeville, B. Heywood, L. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]: I will be brief, Bakewell, B. Browne of Ladyton, L. Barker, B. Bruce of Bennachie, L. as obviously it would be very unfair if the Welsh were Bassam of Brighton, L. Bryan of Partick, B. totallytooutnumbereveryoneelseinthenumberof speeches Beecham, L. Bull, B. delivered this evening. I thank all noble Lords for their Beith, L. Burnett, L. contributions to an interesting, though short, debate. Benjamin, B. Burt of Solihull, B. First, it is very encouraging that there is complete Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Butler of Brockwell, L. Berkeley of Knighton, L. Butler-Sloss, B. consensus on the need for a single subsidy regime for Billingham, B. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. the internal market. There is no doubt about that. Blackstone, B. Campbell-Savours, L. Secondly, there must be a consensus that at the moment Blower, B. Canterbury, Abp. 329 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 330

Carlile of Berriew, L. Hollins, B. Oates, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Carter of Coles, L. Hope of Craighead, L. O’Loan, B. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Cashman, L. Howarth of Newport, L. O’Neill of Bengarve, B. Storey, L. Chakrabarti, B. Hoyle, L. Osamor, B. Strasburger, L. Chandos, V. Humphreys, B. Paddick, L. Stunell, L. Chidgey, L. Hunt of Bethnal Green, B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Suttie, B. Clancarty, E. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Pannick, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Clark of Calton, B. Hussain, L. Parminter, B. Taverne, L. Clark of Kilwinning, B. Hussein-Ece, B. Patel of Bradford, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Patel, L. Clark of Windermere, L. Hutton of Furness, L. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Clement-Jones, L. Inglewood, L. Pendry, L. Pinnock, B. Teverson, L. Cohen of Pimlico, B. Janvrin, L. Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L. Collins of Highbury, L. Jay of Paddington, B. Pitkeathley, B. Prashar, B. Thomas of Gresford, L. Cooper of Windrush, L. Jolly, B. Thomas of Winchester, B. Cork and Orrery, E. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Prescott, L. Primarolo, B. Thornhill, B. Coussins, B. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Thornton, B. Cox, B. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Prosser, B. Thurlow, L. Craig of Radley, L. Jones, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Crawley, B. Jordan, L. Puttnam, L. Thurso, V. Crisp, L. Judd, L. Quin, B. Tonge, B. Curry of Kirkharle, L. Judge, L. Radice, L. Tope, L. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Kakkar, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Touhig, L. Davies of Brixton, L. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Randerson, B. Trevethin and Oaksey, L. Davies of Oldham, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Razzall, L. Triesman, L. Davies of Stamford, L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Rebuck, B. Truscott, L. Desai, L. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Redesdale, L. Turnberg, L. Dholakia, L. Kingsmill, B. Rees of Ludlow, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Donaghy, B. Knight of Weymouth, L. Reid of Cardowan, L. Tyler, L. Donoughue, L. Kramer, B. Rennard, L. Uddin, B. Doocey, B. Krebs, L. Ricketts, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Drake, B. Lane-Fox of Soho, B. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Verjee, L. Dubs, L. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. Eatwell, L. Lee of Trafford, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Elder, L. Leeds, Bp. Rooker, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Evans of Watford, L. Leitch, L. Rosser, L. Walmsley, B. Falconer of Thoroton, L. Lennie, L. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Levy, L. Rowlands, L. Watkins of Tavistock, B. Featherstone, B. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Field of Birkenhead, L. Liddle, L. Sawyer, L. Watts, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Lipsey, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. Wellington, D. Foster of Bath, L. Lister of Burtersett, B. Scriven, L. West of Spithead, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Lisvane, L. Sharkey, L. Wheatcroft, B. Fox, L. Low of Dalston, L. Sheehan, B. Wheeler, B. Freyberg, L. Macdonald of River Glaven, Sherlock, B. Whitaker, B. Gale, B. L. Shipley, L. Whitty, L. Garden of Frognal, B. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Sikka, L. Wigley, L. German, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Simon, V. Wilcox of Newport, B. Giddens, L. L. Smith of Basildon, B. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Glasgow, E. Macpherson of Earl’s Court, Smith of Finsbury, L. Wills, L. Glasman, L. L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Winston, L. Goddard of Stockport, L. Mallalieu, B. Smith of Newnham, B. Wood of Anfield, L. Golding, B. Mandelson, L. Snape, L. Woodley, L. Goldsmith, L. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Somerset, D. Woolf, L. Goudie, B. L. Stephen, L. Worthington, B. Grabiner, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Stern of Brentford, L. Wrigglesworth, L. Grantchester, L. Massey of Darwen, B. Stern, B. Young of Hornsey, B. Greaves, L. Mawson, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Young of Old Scone, B. Green of Hurstpierpoint, L. Maxton, L. Grender, B. McAvoy, L. NOT CONTENTS Griffiths of Burry Port, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Grocott, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. Agnew of Oulton, L. Bloomfield of Hinton Hamwee, B. McNally, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Waldrist, B. Hannay of Chiswick, L. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Borwick, L. Hanworth, V. Mendelsohn, L. Arran, E. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Harries of Pentregarth, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Ashton of Hyde, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Harris of Haringey, L. B. Astor of Hever, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Harris of Richmond, B. Mitchell, L. Austin of Dudley, L. Brady, B. Bridgeman, V. Haskel, L. Monks, L. Balfe, L. Haughey, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Bridges of Headley, L. Haworth, L. Morgan of Huyton, B. Barran, B. Browne of Belmont, L. Hayman of Ullock, B. Morgan, L. Bates, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Hayman, B. Morris of Aberavon, L. Bellingham, L. L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Morris of Yardley, B. Berridge, B. Buscombe, B. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Murphy of Torfaen, L. Bertin, B. Caine, L. Hendy, L. Neuberger of Abbotsbury, L. Bethell, L. Caithness, E. Henig, B. Newby, L. Blackwood of North Oxford, Callanan, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Northover, B. B. Carey of Clifton, L. Hollick, L. Nye, B. Blencathra, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. 331 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 332

Carrington, L. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Sassoon, L. Tebbit, L. Cathcart, E. Jopling, L. Sater, B. Trefgarne, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. Kalms, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Trenchard, V. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Keen of Elie, L. Seccombe, B. True, L. Chartres, L. Kilclooney, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Ullswater, V. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. King of Bridgwater, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Choudrey, L. King of Lothbury, L. Sharpe of Epsom, L. Vere of Norbiton, B. Clarke of Nottingham, L. Kirkham, L. Sheikh, L. Verma, B. Coe, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Shephard of Northwold, B. Wakeham, L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Colgrain, L. Laming, L. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. Colwyn, L. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Shields, B. Shrewsbury, E. Walney, L. Courtown, E. Lancaster of Kimbolton, L. Wasserman, L. Couttie, B. Lang of Monkton, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. Stedman-Scott, B. Waverley, V. Craigavon, V. Lexden, L. Wei, L. Crathorne, L. Lilley, L. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. Wharton of Yarm, L. Cromwell, L. Lindsay, E. Whitby, L. Cumberlege, B. Lingfield, L. Strathclyde, L. Willetts, L. Davies of Gower, L. Liverpool, E. Stroud, B. De Mauley, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Williams of Trafford, B. Deech, B. Loomba, L. Sugg, B. Willoughby de Broke, L. Devon, E. Lothian, M. Suri, L. Wyld, B. Dobbs, L. Lucas, L. Swinfen, L. Young of Graffham, L. Dodds of Duncairn, L. Lupton, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Younger of Leckie, V. Duncan of Springbank, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Dunlop, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. 6.37 pm Eaton, B. Mann, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. Manzoor, B. Eccles, V. Marland, L. Erroll, E. Marlesford, L. Clause 46: Further provision in connection with the Evans of Bowes Park, B. Maude of Horsham, L. Northern Ireland Protocol Fairfax of Cameron, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. Falkner of Margravine, B. McCrea of Magherafelt and Fall, B. Cookstown, L. Amendments 70 to 72 Farmer, L. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. McLoughlin, L. Moved by Lord Judge Fink, L. Mendoza, L. Finn, B. Meyer, B. 70: Clause 46, page 37, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and Fleet, B. Mobarik, B. insert— Fookes, B. Montrose, D. “(1) Section 11 ceases to have effect when Articles 5 to 10 of Fox of Buckley, B. Morgan of Cotes, B. the Northern Ireland Protocol cease to apply.” Framlingham, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Member’s explanatory statement Fraser of Corriegarth, L. Morrissey, B. Freud, L. Morrow, L. This amendment is consequential on the removal of Part 5 Fullbrook, B. Moylan, L. (Northern Ireland Protocol) at Committee Stage. Gadhia, L. Moynihan, L. 71: Clause 46, page 37, line 7, leave out “except the amendment Gardiner of Kimble, L. Naseby, L. made by subsection (3)” Garnier, L. Nash, L. Member’s explanatory statement Gilbert of Panteg, L. Neville-Jones, B. Glenarthur, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. This amendment is consequential on the removal of Part 5 Glendonbrook, L. Newlove, B. (Northern Ireland Protocol) at Committee Stage. Goldie, B. Nicholson of Winterbourne, 72: Clause 46, page 37, line 13, leave out subsection (3) Goodlad, L. B. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Noakes, B. Member’s explanatory statement Greenhalgh, L. Northbrook, L. This amendment is consequential on the removal of Part 5 Grimstone of Boscobel, L. Norton of Louth, L. (Northern Ireland Protocol) at Committee Stage. Hague of Richmond, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Hailsham, V. Parkinson of Whitley Bay , L. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Penn, B. Amendments 70 to 72 agreed. Haselhurst, L. Pickles, L. Hay of Ballyore, L. Pidding, B. Hayward, L. Polak, L. The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) Helic, B. Porter of Spalding, L. (Lab): My Lords, we now come to the group beginning Herbert of South Downs, L. Powell of Bayswater, L. with Amendment 73. I remind noble Lords that Members Hill of Oareford, L. Price, L. other than the mover and the Minister may speak only Hodgson of Abinger, B. Rana, L. once and that short questions of elucidation are Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Randall of Uxbridge, L. L. Ravensdale, L. discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any Hoey, B. Rawlings, B. other amendment in this group to a Division should Hogan-Howe, L. Reay, L. make that clear in the debate. Holmes of Richmond, L. Redfern, B. Hooper, B. Ribeiro, L. Horam, L. Richards of Herstmonceux, L. Amendment 73 Howard of Lympne, L. Risby, L. Howard of Rising, L. Robathan, L. Moved by Lord Mackay of Clashfern Howe, E. Rock, B. Howell of Guildford, L. Rotherwick, L. 73: After Clause 46, insert the following new Clause— Hunt of Wirral, L. Sanderson of Welton, B. “Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiations: Jenkin of Kennington, B. Sarfraz, L. agreement of regulations 333 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 334

(1) Regulations to be made under any provision of this Act Ultimately, the House has made the decision that must be brought before the Joint Ministerial Committee we have not been persuaded by many of the Government’s on European Negotiations for discussion and agreement arguments. Even today, key elements of the legislation before they may be laid before Parliament. have been excised, such as those on spending and (2) If the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiations subsidy powers. From the government Benches, the do not agree to the regulations, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the reasons for the disagreement, noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and table a motion in both Houses of Parliament to indicated that it was not appropriate for the OIM to be debate the regulations and disagreement before they are in the CMA. In a whole series of areas, this House has approved.” taken a view that we are concerned about how the Bill Member’s explanatory statement had been drafted. This new Clause seeks to ensure the Joint Ministerial Committee Fundamentally, one of the themes has been a genuine on European Negotiations, representing all four nations, have ongoing concern, not fully addressed by government sight of the regulations made under this Bill. amendments on consultation, that the powers which Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]: My Lords, I the Government are taking under this legislation will am happy to move Amendment 73. It is the same sort damage, rather than strengthen, devolution. In particular, of amendment that I moved in Committee, when my they will put at risk one of the areas where we have noble friend Lord True was kind enough to say that it seen consensus not only within the parties in this was a unionist type of amendment and, therefore, House but within the nations and the UK Government: could be considered. Since then, the Government have namely, that the frameworks process has been positive, accepted a number of situations covered by my notwithstanding a pause and a disagreement. The amendment. It has therefore probably served its purpose amendment of the noble Lord, Lord True, which this and I do not propose to put it to a Division. House passed with a large majority, the reference that However, it illustrates what I am anxious to achieve: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a degree of co-operation between the devolved indicated with his amendments and our amendment Administrations and the Government of the United show that we also wish for that process to see its Kingdom, which will put the Bill in a much happier natural conclusion. situation than it appeared to be in at first sight. A At this stage, we believe there is merit in seeking good deal has happened already. I just hope that they support for a further set of discussions at a plenary will go a little further. session of the Joint Ministerial Committee, which can I am under a certain restraint, because my computer agree the principles of the market access and an has decided to restart without giving me any notice. I intergovernmental relationship that will put this on a may not be able to speak at all when my turn comes at sound footing for many years to come. That is why we the end of this group but, if not, I end in that spirit. are asking the House to consider a proposal that we believe will allow there to be agreement and consensus, Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): It is a pleasure to follow but not a veto. the noble and learned Lord and we are grateful that he This is the final thing that I will say. We accept that is more reliable that his technology. In Committee and the operation of the UK market is a shared UK with this amendment, he has suggested to—and sought aspect, but it will be a complex set of discussions and to persuade—the Government that there is merit in potentially contentious. That is why in this amendment them thinking again about further consultations on we have sought a mechanism to prevent a veto but to developing the frameworks to the extent that, where allow consensus to be brought about. I know that my they can reach their limit, there would then be the noble friends Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Fox legislative requirement within this Bill. will cover the details. Personally, having gone through I will speak to Amendment 75, in my noble friend all the stages of the Bill, I will say that while we Lord Fox’s name, which tries to put forward a structure recognise Ministers’ willingness to be open, as I have for these discussions and, in effect, to codify it within indicated, there is still a case to be made for one this legislation—providing that framework, as it were, further opportunity to seek consensus. for the talks that should happen. In so doing, I will display what some colleagues in the House consider 6.45 pm my usual characteristic of being rather pernickety—to Lord Cormack (Con): My Lords, I put my name to which I say mea culpa. In our amendment, we reference my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern’s the “Joint Ministerial Council”; it should refer to the amendment out of admiration for him and for the way Joint Ministerial Committee, so I admit that that was in which he has sought positively to contribute to our an error in the drafting. debates on the Bill, both in Committee and on Report. When we started Committee, we had heard reflections All his contributions have been informed by his passionate at Second Reading and the concerns of the devolved unionism. He is a truly remarkable man. He was a Administrations about this Bill. At this stage, there is most revered Lord Chancellor and, of course, had he no need to rehearse the concerns; we have done so in lived in Edinburgh in the Age of Enlightenment he Committee and on Report. Ministers—the noble Lords, would have been one of the adornments of that age. Lord True and Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, We are extremely fortunate to have him as a Member Lady Bloomfield, in particular—have been very willing of your Lordships’ House. to meet with us and discuss this. We have not always I say to my noble friend Lord True that my noble been in agreement; nevertheless, personally speaking, and learned friend Lord Mackay has indicated that he I am grateful for the opportunities to discuss some of does not wish to push his amendment to a Division these issues with the Ministers. because he is appreciative of the recognition of the 335 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 336

[LORD CORMACK] Lord, Lord Fox, to which I have added my name, serves importance of the union displayed by my noble friends that purpose. The amendment addresses the need to Lord True and Lord Callanan, and indeed all those have a coherent framework for the work of the Joint who have spoken from the Front Bench. However, and Ministerial Committee and to provide a mechanism I say this on my own account, while I completely for when there may be disagreements. The noble Lord, understand why my noble and learned friend does not Lord Purvis, stated that this amendment provides for want to divide on this amendment, and I admire him any opportunity to achieve a consensus where that is greatly for all that he has done, I still believe that the possible—an excellent aspiration. union is in peril, and it is terribly important that my Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, stressed noble friends on the Front Bench take most carefully tonight, as he has before, the need to find ways of into account all that has been said today on the co-operating. As I am sure he would be glad to hear, I subject of the union. All the amendments have been add that my main objective in seeking greater powers informed by a great love for the union, a recognition for Wales is not primarily to demolish the union, but that it is at risk and a passionate, consuming desire to to change it into something that better serves the ensure that the most successful union in European interests of our respective countries. That means giving history does not come to grief. greater power and being prepared to be flexible,something If, when he comes to wind up, my noble friend that has not been entirely apparent in the Government’s Lord True could emphasise his own devotion to the attitude to the Bill. union, that would be a reward to my noble and learned There clearly has to be some mechanism for dealing friend Lord Mackay for his persistence, and a recognition with situations where there is a disagreement among from your Lordships’ House of the esteem in which we our four nations. It should have been the duty of the hold him. Government to find an acceptable solution, but they have failed to do so. I therefore believe that we should Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]: It is a give MPs in the other place an opportunity to address pleasure to follow Lord Cormack, who has neatly this matter again by writing an amendment along demonstrated in this last group on Report how much these lines into the Bill. this has been a cross-party, cross-House effort. There may be many things that we disagree on, but what has Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): My Lords, I been broadly agreed is that the Bill is not currently fit am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I for purpose. We have seen that again and again, with endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Cormack very strong votes for the amendments put forward by said about our noble and learned friend Lord Mackay your Lordships’ House from a wide range of directions. of Clashfern. It is fitting that, in opening this group, the noble and I have not spoken in general terms about the union. learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, demonstrated Suffice it to say that, as a Scot by birth with a Scottish the House’s persistence in the face of technological father, who made her maiden speech next door on the challenges, which has been a great credit to the House Scotland Bill, I care passionately about this area. I right through this debate and, indeed, through the lend my support to the terms of the amendment as set entire Covid-19 pandemic. out by my noble and learned friend. I urge my noble I will speak briefly to Amendment 75, introduced friend Lord True to show the same spirit as our noble by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, to which I friend Lord Callanan when he accepted many of the have attached my name, as have the noble Lords, areas, identified by the Law Society of Scotland in Lord Fox and Lord Wigley. I shall not go through it in earlier parts of the Bill, on which we felt that the detail; it is a very detailed amendment, but that reflects Government should consult. I am just disappointed of the nature of this debate and the issue of trust. that those fell to the terms of consent being sought. I Your Lordships’ House has heard again and again, am not sure that is appropriate in all those circumstances. including in reports from its respected committees, of We must not lose sight of the fact that the Scottish great concern about details, plans and policies not Parliament withheld its consent to this legislation. It being put in the Bill. This is one more amendment that behoves the Government to move as far as possible seeks to tackle that. Looking at the overview of this, and to consult. I am mindful of the old BT advert: it your Lordships’ House has, perhaps slightly ironically, is good to talk. By talking and consulting, many been standing very firm as a defender of devolution misunderstandings are removed. It also behoves the and democracy. We will almost certainly return to this Government to ensure that the common frameworks again and I urge all Members of this House to stand are allowed to reach their natural conclusion in the up for these issues, which are crucial for the future of areas that are already well advanced. I wish my noble the United Kingdom, whatever shape that might take. and learned friend Lord Mackay and his amendment the best, and hope that our noble friend Lord True Lord Wigley (PC) [V]: My Lords, I am glad to have might be magnanimous and come forward with something the opportunity to speak in this group of amendments similar at the next stage. and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who has made a massive contribution to our work on the Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]: My Lords, I am Bill. As I have stated in previous debates, the House speaking in support of Amendment 75, and I recognise would be well advised to listen to the words of the the constructive intentions behind Amendments 73 and 76. noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I want to be clear that I have not been persuaded in Time after time, he has alerted the House to the need any way of the case for this Bill. It is wrong in almost to find an acceptable compromise on these matters. In every respect, and that is why it has been substantially particular, Amendment 75, in the name of the noble amended: I think the House takes a similar view. 337 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 338

Of course, I have supported amendments that mitigate he said, the UK internal market is not a fixed law, like its worst effects, but I view with growing despair the the law of the Medes and Persians. He made a great failure of the Government to grasp just how negative contribution, together with the noble and learned and dangerous is the thrust of this Bill. Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in bringing the common The Bill is clearly driven by an ideological and frameworks programme into being in 2017. deluded belief that the UK Government can negotiate I believe that the nationalist-led Administrations in trade deals more far-reaching and radical than have Scotland and Wales, by arguing that powers that have been achieved within the EU and that, in doing so, been held by the European Commission in maintaining they do not wish to allow the existing devolution common frameworks at a European level should not arrangements to account for any friction in the process. return to Westminster but should be returned to the Of course, however, Part 5 of the Bill destroys the devolved authorities, are acting against the economic negotiating capacity of the Government, who have interests of their stakeholders. They might want to had no experience of negotiating trade deals in more increase the powers of the institutions of which they than 40 years,by advertising in advance their preparedness are members, but they do not give enough consideration to set aside unilaterally any agreements that they to the damage to the UK internal market that their might sign. The trouble is that the Government seem power grab threatens to cause. completely oblivious to the friction that will result from unilaterally overriding decision-making under 7 pm the devolution settlements. The return of powers from Brussels was supposed It has been argued repeatedly that decisions involving to herald a return to a simpler, clearer, rules-based the devolved Administrations should be based on regulatory system, but the transposition of EU law seeking agreement. The principles behind the common into UK law is proving more complicated than it frameworks have been met with wide support and should have been, with every statutory instrument approval, and I welcome their inclusion in Amendment 76 having to set out in detail the differences in application in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson between the four constituent nations. of Balmacara. However, there is still a serious lacuna The Government have made clear their continuing in the process for reaching agreements across the four commitment to the common frameworks process, and nations, and Amendment 75 addresses this. The the House should give that more recognition. In an amendment also seeks to utilise the joint ministerial earlier debate my noble friend Lord Naseby rightly committee, which, in practice, has not been used enough, said that this Bill is not the place—and it is certainly but which could be an effective means of producing a not the right time—to undermine the drive of the Bill, dispute-resolution process. which seeks to ensure that the UK Government have The problem at the moment is that the default the necessary powers to ensure that the internal market position leaves it to UK Ministers—who, of course, remains intact, which is so necessary for us to make a are also English Ministers—to have the final say. It is success of leaving the EU. not desirable for any one of the four nations to have a My noble friend Lady Noakes has also spoken veto on achieving agreement. We are quite clear about powerfully about the need for the Government and the that. That is why a premium should be placed on devolved Administrations to consider the needs of all seeking agreement wherever possible. Where it is not British businesses, and indeed consumers. A majority possible, however, there needs to be a mechanism that of British businesses trade only within the UK, as do is seen to be fair and collaborative and not one-sided. some 90% of SMEs. Let us not shoot ourselves in the That might involve qualified majority voting, which I foot by legislating to tie the hands of the Government have advocated on a number of occasions. However, in their most important task of ensuring that there are this amendment proposes not a solution but a mechanism no internal market barriers to trade that would reduce for finding one. My noble friend Lord Purvis, in choice and increase costs for all our citizens. previous contributions, alluded to the Australian example My noble friend Lord True has made it clear that where the mechanism was unanimously agreed by all the Government see this Bill as complementary to the the state premiers, but decisions relied on qualified common frameworks programme. He clearly stated majority voting. that the devolved authorities would be able to continue This Bill will do immense damage to the union and to innovate and regulate in devolved policy areas, to what is left of Britain’s good standing in the world, subject to the overriding need to prevent internal which this Government seem determined to destroy. protectionist barriers. Amending it is only damage limitation, but Amendment 75 My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and my would go a long way to help.I support it: it is a mechanism noble friend Lord Cormack are both strong supporters by which we can find solutions to disagreements among of the union, and I welcome the fact that the Government our four nations that do not allow for veto but do seek have made gestures to accommodate the concerns consent and will have the support of all the component they put forward. Against that background, I agree parts of the union, apart from those who have no with my noble and learned friend that we can be desire to maintain it. Many of us want this union to optimistic that the joint ministerial committee will in survive and to be effective: this kind of amendment is any case be able to agree on these matters, and I a way to try to ensure that. understand why he has indicated that he will not move his amendment. Viscount Trenchard (Con): My Lords, my noble and I cannot support Amendments 75 and 76, which learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern made some would damage our ability to prosper as an independent powerful arguments on this subject in Committee. As country in the years ahead. 339 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 340

The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]: My Lords, it is a indication of what this reform contained, as it is of pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Trenchard, consequence to our consideration of disputes under who has contributed so much to the different stages of this Bill. But the Minister would not be drawn, and we this Bill. Once again, it has also been a great pleasure are being asked to consider this Bill without this to support my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay knowledge and without the proper mechanism. It of Clashfern as he tries to prompt the Government to sounds as if the Government are going to rely on some outline a process of devolved consultation on any political bargaining somewhere along the line. major disputes in the creation of regulations or statutory I have another question of clarification for my instruments that future Administrations will consider noble friend the Minister. Will the Competition and adequate to the task under this Bill. Markets Authority—which is above political interference Almost all the issues discussed today fall very much —and its office of the internal market task force be into the area that recalls the off-the-cuff remark that given the support they need to face disputes in a court slipped from the lips of my right honourable friend the of law? That appears to be where this is all heading. Prime Minister, which he has since spent some time trying to explain in any way that fits with government Lord Fox (LD): My Lords, this has again been a policies going forward. Speaking as a Scotsman, however, high-quality debate. It is an honour to follow the I believe that the First Minister of Scotland should noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, who spoke with take some comfort from what the Prime Minister said great wisdom. In offering Her Majesty’s Government and the fact that as devolution has progressed she has support, that support was heavily nuanced with some been able to move many Scots institutions and practices— important questions, which I look forward to hearing never as far as she might like, but always in the the Minister answer. direction that she would like, towards an independent In the previous debate, on Amendment 69, the nation. The situation in Wales has not been the same; noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, it has been much healthier. Naturally,this is the approach set the question of whether it was diktat versus consensus. that we can expect the First Minister to use with any It is the same with group. I am pleased to speak in a future changes, and it presumably explains the lack of group which has heard the contribution of the noble consent from that area. and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and I share in the Like my noble friend Lord Cormack, today I wish admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for his to support a Government who aim to maintain a contribution. He painted a rather half-full picture of United Kingdom. The Government are looking for where we have got to in the Bill, and the noble Lord, support and settlements in structures and frameworks Lord Cormack, was a little more half-empty. I am that can support devolution within, and as part of, the afraid that I side with the concerns of the noble Lord, United Kingdom. In supporting my noble and learned Lord Cormack. Those concerns were further illustrated friend, we are all seeking a truly robust mechanism by my noble friend Lord Bruce, who set out the flaws that has the possibility of overcoming disagreements and problems that remain with the Bill. at the highest level. The debates in your Lordships I am speaking to Amendment 75, in my name, and I House today are more and more an illustration of the am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Purvis levels of disagreement that will have to be solved. of Tweed, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the In Committee, my noble friend the Minister in his noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Overall, my noble friends reply gave some idea and suggestions of the criteria have been very clear and helpful in setting out the that the Government have in mind for resolving disputes purpose of this amendment. It is essentially to help at a more mundane level. Some of it sounded quite drive a process whereby the consensus that the noble good, as far as it went. Disputes such as those he and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, talked about in the outlined are frequently liable to comprise very technical last group can be delivered—an explicit process. elements, and the Government would like to resolve Why do we need an explicit process? One thing that these at a departmental level, or, as they say, at as low has come through the Bill, and through amendments a level as possible—whatever that is. brought by both Ministers, is an acknowledgement of In Committee, my noble and learned friend Lord the need for consultation. However, as we heard from Mackay insisted that his suggestion for working these the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who was here just a few things out through the Joint Ministerial Committee minutes ago and I am afraid is not here now, one on EU Negotiations was exactly what is needed. However, Minister’s consultation is not necessarily one recipient’s he is hoping that the amendments the Government feeling consulted. There is a process that is called have now introduced will move it some way in that consultation, whereby people are informed marginally direction. before the general public, and then there is genuine In his response in Committee, my noble friend the consultation. All Governments practice both these Minister enticed us—and it was repeated at a briefing forms of consultation. I received today—with the thought that there is in Amendment 75 sets out a process whereby consensus train a revision of the workings of the Joint Ministerial is driven, rather than relying on the Minister or the Committee, where already Government of the day, whether this one or future “The proposal for reforming the formal process for avoiding ones,to deliver that consensus around the Joint Ministerial and resolving intergovernmental disputes was jointly drafted”.— Committee. That process has been set out, as I said, by [Official Report, 2/11/20; cols. 529-30] my colleagues. The purpose is, in a sense, to bookend Having said that, the Minister was then asked by the the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed—who has also Lord Hope. After Part 5 discussions, we started these prompted us today—whether we would be given some discussions with the amendment of the noble and 341 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 342 learned Lord, Lord Hope, which pushed the common These amendments have difficulties because they frameworks to the forefront of how the future internal would all introduce, in our judgment, a serious risk of market should be organised. Amendment 75 seeks to the internal market system not being in place at the put in place a process by which this can happen and, end of the transition period. That is a serious consideration as my noble friend set out, avoids the pitfall of a veto. in our contention. I agree with my noble friend The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said that he had Lord Trenchard, with his great experience of business— concerns about the union. I have concerns about the indeed, of business with Japan—that a secure, stable union. It is only by delivering a truly consensual and functioning market is part of the bedrock of our process that is seen to be transparent and set out, union. It is a unionist principle that we should have a rather than optional, for people, that that danger can common functioning market; I think that that is assented start to be averted. That is why I will be pressing to by almost all of those who have spoken in our Amendment 75 to a vote—unless, of course, there is a debates. Of course, I repeat my personal commitment damascene conversion on the Benches opposite. and this Government’s commitment to the union. My party has always been a unionist party, and we remain as such. Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]: My Lords, Coming back to the amendments, in our judgment, like others, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, a considerable delay would undermine business certainty Lord Mackay, on his campaign. The Government and consumer confidence at a time when it is vital that have listened to it and that has resulted in a number of the economy is able to bounce back in the Covid good and important changes to the Bill. He exerts recovery phrase, about which my right honourable great influence on our work, and long may it continue. friend the Chancellor spoke so eloquently earlier today. I admire the thinking that has gone into Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, Amendment 73, as others have said, absolutely and his supporters. It proposes a response to another underscores the honourable intent of the noble and of the gaps that we keep encountering in the Bill—the learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. We have need to reform the JMC system and the need for a had a meeting of minds on that. I am grateful for his mechanism for getting agreement, with particular kind words; I can certainly assure him that he has been reference, in this case, to the market access principles, a great influence in securing constructive change, as about which we have different views. This may not be have other noble Lords in the course of these debates. the time to bring this particular proposal in, but it I can affirm that the union will remain at the heart of shows us the way forward and I hope that that will the Government’s objectives. I am grateful for his influence the Government’s thinking in other ways withdrawing the amendment with the comments and, and in other parts of our political consciousness. indeed, warnings that he set around that withdrawal because of the clear limitations—I will come on to Amendment 76, in my name, was intended as a these—of linking any proposal to the Joint Ministerial fallback, in case our plans for ensuring that the common Committee. frameworks programme was made the centrepiece of the process for agreeing the rules required to underpin For that reason, I will move on to Amendment 75, the UK internal market fell by the wayside. However, which specifies a process of debate and consent that this House has strongly supported the amendments of must be achieved with the devolved Administrations the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the common through the joint ministerial council before the market frameworks, and we hope that, in time, we can persuade access principles can take effect. This process would add the Government that they can and should do likewise. an unacceptable delay to the implementation of the market access principles when the very reason for the I am less sure that we have persuaded the Government Bill that we are here to discuss is to provide certainty about the damage they will do to the devolution to businesses from 1 January 2021, when the European settlement if they do not change tack on how state aid structure falls away. The objective to provide certainty is to be organised and their current top-down plans for as powers flow back from the European Union is not the shared prosperity fund. I urge them to reflect on new or rushed; indeed, efforts have been made to discuss the opportunity they have been given by the votes this over a lengthy period. I must remind your Lordships today, but I do not think Amendment 76 will actually that, sadly, the Scottish Government walked away take the trick that it was intended to in this case, so I from the internal market project in spring 2019. However, shall not be pressing it to a vote. there has been continuing, positive and helpful engagement at official, and indeed ministerial, level since then. I do 7.15 pm not share the pessimism, suspicion or doubt of a The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) number of your Lordships that our union cannot (Con): My Lords, I must say that any computer that prosper with this internal market after January 2021. tries to silence my noble and learned friend Lord There is a valid question on how governance and Mackay of Clashfern should be carried to the top of disputes relating to the internal market should be the Old Man of Hoy and dropped from a very great dealt with through intergovernmental machinery; my height, hopefully with destructive power—unless any noble friend the Duke of Montrose alluded to our environmentalist thinks that that is a serious suggestion; earlier discussions on this. As I updated your Lordships it is a figure of speech. Those who are not familiar earlier in these discussions, the Government are looking with the Old Man of Hoy should understand that it is with the devolved Administrations at reforms to the an extremely high stack in a very beautiful part of the Joint Ministerial Committee structure. The intent is to country. It is very hard to climb, too; I have never move on through the joint intergovernmental relations attempted it—you only have to look at me to see that. review. 343 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 344

[LORD TRUE] Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, pointed out, This review will deliver the overarching architecture with the inclusion of the amendment of the noble and to support the delivery of improved and effective learned Lord, Lord Hope—although the Government engagement with the devolved Administrations at all did not and do not accept it—your Lordships have levels of government—as my noble friend the Duke of ensured that common frameworks will be discussed in Montrose alluded to—from officials upwards and, if another place; no doubt we will have opportunities to necessary, the consideration of cross-cutting issues consider it further. I think that was the spirit in which above departmental level. I repeat what I said earlier: the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was withdrawing his this is not complete, but work is progressing positively amendment. I appreciate that and offer him those in this respect. I think that all the various Administrations words of assurance. would accept that. We welcome further discussions The process proposed in his amendment and with the DAs on finalising the format of these engagement Amendment 75 undermines the purpose of the market structures, including to complement those relating to access principles, which are designed to provide the internal market, and I look forward to reporting underpinning certainty that the UK internal market back to this House on our finalised governance structures will continue to function in all circumstances. These when we have concluded the review, which, as I have amendments would create uncertainty about whether said, we aim to do by the end of the year. and when the market access principles would apply. In addition, as set out in my letter to colleagues Leaving businesses to manage this uncertainty and prior to Report, the Government propose that a meeting friction is not acceptable. Indeed, it undermines the be held in the new year with devolved counterparts core purpose of the Bill of providing businesses with once the Bill becomes law to agree a programme of certainty that they can continue to trade across the official and ministerial-level engagement on the—my UK at the end of the transition period. For these brief says “operationalisation”; can you imagine such reasons, the Government cannot support these a thing?—implementation and operation of the Bill. amendments and I hope the noble and learned Lord This includes determining the practical arrangements will withdraw his amendment. to deliver our commitment to meet Ministers in the devolved Administrations annually, as undertaken on The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) this Bill, to review the operation of the UK internal (Lab): I have received no requests to speak after the market as supported by Parts 1 to 4 of the Bill, Minister. I now call the noble and learned Lord, including new developments that might require the Lord Mackay of Clashfern. use of such delegated powers. This annual meeting will be just one of the regular intergovernmental meetings Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]: My Lords, I between BEIS Ministers and officials on other portfolio am glad to be able to speak to noble Lords, although I matters, such as the Covid-19 response. cannot now see them. I appreciate what has been said. On Amendment 76, I do not mean to disparage the I do not think it necessarily involves uncertainty about noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Purvis of Tweed; the principles, as my noble friend Lord True suggested. indeed, I thank them for their openness and engagement I think it could be quite clear that the principles apply, in the process so far. I was going on to thank the except so far as they are modified by the common Labour Party for its engagement, and I never want to frameworks agreements. That does not in any way give unintended offence to anyone in your Lordships’ make them uncertain. If it were needed, some kind of House. notice that a common frameworks decision was to become part of the internal market rule would possibly I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for what deal with that if it had to be dealt with, but it is he said; I am grateful for the engagement and discussions perfectly reasonable to think that the common frameworks that we have had on this and the common frameworks could work as part of the arrangements in such a way programme. His amendment seeks to create a link that the results of agreements in the common frameworks between the common frameworks programme and the are put into effect in the UK internal market rule. market access principles. While it is true that the internal market provisions and common frameworks I agree that the internal market is fundamental to programme are complementary, as we have tried to the union of the United Kingdom. As has been said, it persuade your Lordships—that is how the Government was the rule right from the first day of the union. I see it—it is not appropriate to create a link with the entreat the Government to think carefully about how common frameworks programme in that specific way to engage the common frameworks policy in the rule in this amendment. I will not go on at length because of the common market in a way that is acceptable and the noble Lord has said that he does not intend to does no harm. I cannot see that it does any harm. It press it, but I underline that I appreciate the strength makes it all the more constructive. The internal market of feeling in the House on common frameworks, which rule is a living instrument, which should accommodate I and other Ministers continue to reflect on. In saying degrees of innovation that might well bring forward that, I will not undertake to come back to this House the whole market in due course. I shall not press my on Third Reading, so if any noble Lords wish to test amendment, as I indicated, because I think the the opinion of the House on this issue, it would have Government have already done what I wanted in most to be at this point. of the situations where it would be suitable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I assure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to the common frameworks programme. Amendment 73 withdrawn. The processes established in it will work with future intergovernmental relations machinery. As the noble Amendment 74 not moved. 345 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[25 NOVEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 346

Clause 50: Extent, commencement and short title Division No. 5 CONTENTS Amendment 75 Addington, L. Lee of Trafford, L. Moved by Lord Fox Adebowale, L. Leitch, L. 75: Clause 50, page 39, line 5, at end insert “, subject to Alderdice, L. Loomba, L. subsection (3A). Allan of Hallam, L. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Alton of Liverpool, L. L. (3A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under Andrews, B. Masham of Ilton, B. subsection (3) may not appoint a day for the commencement Bakewell of Hardington McNally, L. of Part 1, 2, 3 or 4 until the following requirements Mandeville, B. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, are met— Bakewell, B. B. (a) the requirement in subsection (3B), and Barker, B. Morris of Aberavon, L. Beith, L. Murphy, B. (b) the requirement in subsection (3C) or the Benjamin, B. Newby, L. requirement in subsection (3D). Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Northover, B. (3B) The requirement in this subsection is that the Prime Berkeley of Knighton, L. Oates, L. Minister must convene a plenary session of the Joint Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Paddick, L. Ministerial Council in order to seek agreement of the B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. market access principles set out in section 1(2). Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Parminter, B. (3C) If an agreement on the market access principles is Bowness, L. Pinnock, B. reached at the conclusion of the Joint Ministerial Council Bradshaw, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. session, the requirement in this subsection is that the Brinton, B. Ramsbotham, L. Brown of Cambridge, B. Randerson, B. Secretary of State must laybefore Parliament a memorandum Bruce of Bennachie, L. Razzall, L. of understanding which sets out— Bull, B. Redesdale, L. (a) details of the agreed principles; and Burnett, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. (b) proposals for the establishment of an agreed dispute Burt of Solihull, B. Reid of Cardowan, L. resolution mechanism relating to the internal market Butler of Brockwell, L. Rennard, L. in the United Kingdom for any disputes among the Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Ricketts, L. Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Carlile of Berriew, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Ministers, and a Northern Ireland department. Cashman, L. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Clancarty, E. Russell of Liverpool, L. (3D) If unanimous agreement is not reached at the conclusion Clement-Jones, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. of the Joint Ministerial Council session, the requirement Cooper of Windrush, L. Scriven, L. in this subsection is that the Secretary of State must lay Cork and Orrery, E. Sharkey, L. before Parliament a report outlining— Cotter, L. Sheehan, B. (a) why unanimous agreement could not be reached; Coussins, B. Shipley, L. and Crisp, L. Smith of Finsbury, L. Davies of Stamford, L. Smith of Newnham, B. (b) proposals for the operation of the internal market Dholakia, L. Somerset, D. in the United Kingdom in light of the fact that an Doocey, B. St Albans, Bp. agreement under subsection (3B) was not reached Featherstone, B. St John of Bletso, L. unanimously.” Field of Birkenhead, L. Stephen, L. Lord Fox (LD): My Lords, it has been very helpful to Filkin, L. Stern of Brentford, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Stern, B. hear the Minister.His description of the intergovernmental Foster of Bath, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. discussions is very important and we wish the Government Fox, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. good speed on that. If the Minister or his colleagues Freyberg, L. Storey, L. can keep us updated on the progress of those very Garden of Frognal, B. Strasburger, L. important discussions, we would be grateful. German, L. Stunell, L. Glasgow, E. Suttie, B. On Amendment 75, the Minister made great play about Goddard of Stockport, L. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. the timetable, but it should be noted that the Bill does Greaves, L. Teverson, L. not affect any existing legislation on day one.Furthermore, Greengross, B. Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L. the devolved authorities have agreed to a standstill Grender, B. Thomas of Gresford, L. arrangement. The Minister is creating a false timetable Hamwee, B. Thomas of Winchester, B. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Thornhill, B. pressure on your Lordships. I do not believe that your Harries of Pentregarth, L. Thurso, V. Lordships need to be constrained on time for this. Harris of Richmond, B. Tonge, B. In conclusion, the noble and learned Lord, Hollins, B. Tope, L. Lord Mackay, spoke about the internal market as a Houghton of Richmond, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Humphreys, B. Tyler, L. living, breathing, changing process. To run that, there Hussain, L. Uddin, B. needs to be a structure with the JMC and the devolved Hussein-Ece, B. Verjee, L. authorities. Amendment 75 would set in place one way Jolly, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. of doing that and I am sure we would be very happy to Jones of Cheltenham, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. discuss other ways of doing that with the Government Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Walmsley, B. Judd, L. Wigley, L. if they have ideas. To put that pressure on, I would like Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. to test the will of the House. Kramer, B. Wilson of Dinton, L. Krebs, L. Wrigglesworth, L. 7.31 pm

Division conducted remotely on Amendment 75 NOT CONTENTS Contents 134; Not-Contents 247. Aberdare, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Agnew of Oulton, L. Arran, E. Amendment 75 disagreed. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. 347 United Kingdom Internal Market Bill[LORDS] Sport Sector: Financial Support 348

Astor of Hever, L. Fullbrook, B. Montrose, D. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Austin of Dudley, L. Gadhia, L. Moore of Etchingham , L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Baker of Dorking, L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Morgan of Cotes, B. Sharpe of Epsom, L. Balfe, L. Garnier, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Sheikh, L. Barran, B. Gilbert of Panteg, L. Morrissey, B. Shephard of Northwold, B. Barwell, L. Glenarthur, L. Morrow, L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Bates, L. Glendonbrook, L. Moylan, L. Shields, B. Bellingham, L. Goldie, B. Moynihan, L. Shinkwin, L. Berridge, B. Goldsmith of Richmond Nash, L. Shrewsbury, E. Bertin, B. Park, L. Neville-Jones, B. Smith of Hindhead, L. Bethell, L. Goodlad, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Stedman-Scott, B. Blackwell, L. Grabiner, L. Newlove, B. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Blackwood of North Oxford, Grade of Yarmouth, L. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Stewart of Dirleton, L. B. Greenhalgh, L. B. Stowell of Beeston, B. Blencathra, L. Greenway, L. Noakes, B. Strathclyde, L. Bloomfield of Hinton Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Northbrook, L. Stroud, B. Waldrist, B. Grimstone of Boscobel, L. Norton of Louth, L. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Borwick, L. Hague of Richmond, L. O’Loan, B. Sugg, B. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Hailsham, V. O’Shaughnessy, L. Suri, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Pannick, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Haselhurst, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay , L. Taylor of Warwick, L. Brady, B. Hay of Ballyore, L. Patel, L. Tebbit, L. Bridgeman, V. Hayward, L. Penn, B. Trefgarne, L. Bridges of Headley, L. Helic, B. Pickles, L. Trenchard, V. Browne of Belmont, L. Henley, L. Pidding, B. True, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Herbert of South Downs, L. Polak, L. Ullswater, V. L. Hill of Oareford, L. Popat, L. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Buscombe, B. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Porter of Spalding, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Caine, L. Hoey, B. Price, L. Vere of Norbiton, B. Caithness, E. Hogan-Howe, L. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Verma, B. Callanan, L. Holmes of Richmond, L. Ranger, L. Vinson, L. Carey of Clifton, L. Hooper, B. Reay, L. Wakeham, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Horam, L. Redfern, B. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. Carrington, L. Howard of Lympne, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. Cathcart, E. Howard of Rising, L. Ribeiro, L. Walney, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. Howe, E. Risby, L. Warsi, B. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Howell of Guildford, L. Robathan, L. Wasserman, L. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Hunt of Wirral, L. Rock, B. Waverley, V. Choudrey, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Rogan, L. Wei, L. Clarke of Nottingham, L. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Rotherwick, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Coe, L. Jopling, L. Sanderson of Welton, B. Whitby, L. Colgrain, L. Kakkar, L. Sarfraz, L. Williams of Trafford, B. Colville of Culross, V. Kalms, L. Sassoon, L. Wyld, B. Colwyn, L. Kilclooney, L. Sater, B. Young of Cookham, L. Courtown, E. King of Bridgwater, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Young of Graffham, L. Couttie, B. Kirkham, L. Seccombe, B. Younger of Leckie, V. Cox, B. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Craig of Radley, L. Laming, L. 7.43 pm Craigavon, V. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Crathorne, L. Lancaster of Kimbolton, L. Cumberlege, B. Lansley, L. Amendment 76 not moved. Curry of Kirkharle, L. Leigh of Hurley, L. Dannatt, L. Lilley, L. Davies of Gower, L. Lindsay, E. Amendment 77 De Mauley, L. Lingfield, L. Deech, B. Liverpool, E. Moved by Lord Judge Deighton, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Dobbs, L. Lothian, M. 77: Clause 50, page 39, line 6, leave out subsection (4) Dodds of Duncairn, L. Lupton, L. Member’s explanatory statement Duncan of Springbank, L. Lytton, E. This amendment is consequential on the removal of Part 5 Dunlop, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. (Northern Ireland Protocol) at Committee Stage. Eaton, B. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Empey, L. L. Erroll, E. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Amendment 77 agreed. Evans of Bowes Park, B. Mann, L. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Manzoor, B. Falkner of Margravine, B. Marland, L. Fall, B. Marlesford, L. The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) Farmer, L. Maude of Horsham, L. (Lab): That concludes the Bill. We will now go straight Fellowes of West Stafford, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. on to the next session, so I ask the Ministers to swap. Fink, L. McCrea of Magherafelt and Finn, B. Cookstown, L. Fleet, B. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Fookes, B. McIntosh of Pickering, B. Sport Sector: Financial Support Fox of Buckley, B. McLoughlin, L. Statement Framlingham, L. Mendoza, L. Fraser of Corriegarth, L. Meyer, B. The following Statement was made in the House of Freud, L. Mobarik, B. Commons on 19 November. 349 Sport Sector: Financial Support[25 NOVEMBER 2020] Sport Sector: Financial Support 350

“For millions of people up and down the country, Today’s provisional allocations are not the end of the sport is so much more than a pastime. Sports clubs, story. The door is open for any sport to apply where large and small, enrich lives both on and off the there is a need. That includes cricket and other sports pitches, the courts and the grounds, and they play a that are not on the initial list of allocations. Full vital role in their communities. The value that sports details of the application process will shortly be announced clubs bring to their communities has been clearer than by Sport England, with the first tranche of support ever during this pandemic, and it is right that we expected to be distributed to clubs and bodies before support them. the end of the year. In the meantime, if any individual club is facing imminent collapse, we will work with it Earlier this year, in May, we announced a £16 million through its national governing body. Based on the emergency bailout for rugby league to prevent the information that sports have given us, this package sport’s collapse, and the Treasury’s multi-billion-pound will help them to survive until the spring. support packages, including the furlough and loan Of course, we would all prefer to see fans back in the schemes, have been a lifeline for countless sports clubs stadiums. Spectator sports need spectators, and with the and organisations across the country, helping them to real progress that we are making on vaccines and testing, stay afloat when their doors remained closed. Sport that goal is now firmly within our sight. Until then, we England has announced separate emergency funding have stepped in to protect not just individual clubs of £220 million for grass-roots clubs, and we recently and organisations, but entire sports and the communities announced a £100 million scheme for leisure centres. they serve. I commend this Statement to the House.” Together, that support has acted as a significant buffer to the pain. 7.45 pm However, we know that the decision taken in late Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I am September not to re-open the stadiums from 1 October grateful to the Minister for repeating last week’sStatement. has had major consequences for sports clubs large and Normally, it is undesirable to have such a gap between small. It was the right decision, given the rate at which the debates in both Houses, but, in this case, it allows coronavirus was spreading across the country, but us to consider recent developments. clearly, not being able to generate gate receipts deprives Labour welcomes the additional financial support many organisations of a major source of income. The for the sport sector, and I repeat the thanks expressed vast majority of those sports operate on tight financial by my colleague, Alison McGovern, for the hard-working margins and have been forced to make serious cost Treasury and DCMS, who have had to deal with complex reductions such as locking down grounds, furloughing financial returns at speed. It is regrettable, and I do their staff, cutting wages and halting excess payment. not like to sound curmudgeonly here, but Ministers It was clear that if we did not act, a number of clubs chose that process at such a late stage. However, these would go to the wall, with real consequences for the funds will nevertheless provide a lifeline for the range grass-roots game. That is why, over the past few weeks, of sports that receive them, and for that reason they we have been working tirelessly with the sports sector are very welcome. to understand the real pressures it is facing. Last week, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State reiterated his desire for this money to be going We promised to stand by the sports sector when we out in weeks and certainly for some of it to be disbursed made the decision to postpone the return of fans, and before Christmas. Is the noble Baroness able to provide today I am pleased to announce a £300 million sports any updates on the planned timescales, particularly in winter survival package to see major spectator sports the light of today’s wider economic announcements? through this difficult period. The majority of that Can she express in percentage terms what amount she funding will be given through low-interest loans, with expects to arrive at with organisations before year flexible repayment terms and grants where organisations end? I very much hope that the department has learned are unable to repay loans. The package will focus on lessons from its experience with the Culture Recovery those sports that have been severely impacted by the Fund, which, as we all know, took some time to start restrictions announced in September, and it is the distributing moneys. largest package announced by any Government for its domestic sport sector in the world. In response to a question on equal access for funding by women’s sports, Mr Huddleston said that there I stress that these are provisional allocations of would be an appropriate proportion for women’s sport. funding. They were made on a needs-based assessment What, in the Minister’s view, is an appropriate amount? process,and reflect the submissions made by the individual Again, I would appreciate a percentage. I know, from sports. Recipients will still need to apply, and the previous comments, that the Minister shares my view funding process will be overseen by an independent that we must not allow the pandemic to reverse the decision-making board and supported by Sport England. excellent progress and good work in women’s sports That funding will include a top-up for rugby league of over recent years, but that will be possible only with up to £12 million, as well as cash injections of up to appropriate financial help and support. £28 million for national league football and women’s The noble Baroness will not be surprised if I ask for football, up to £135 million for rugby union, and up to an update on the Government’s planned fan-led review £40 million for horseracing. There is also up to £6 million of football governance. We have been told that for motorsport, up to £4 million each for netball, preparations are in progress without any dates being basketball, and ice hockey,up to £1 million for greyhound named. Ministers continue to point out that it was a racing, up to £5 million for tennis, and up to £1.6 million manifesto commitment of theirs. Given this, we would for badminton. expect there to be some more urgency. 351 Sport Sector: Financial Support[LORDS] Sport Sector: Financial Support 352

[LORD BASSAM OF BRIGHTON] events would become an exception to restrictions or I wish to probe a little on Monday’s announcement do we face the prospect of clubs opening their doors in that a limited number of fans will be allowed to return December, only to see them being slammed shut in the to sports stadia once the national lockdown is lifted new year? and the tier system resumes. Allowing up to 4,000 fans to attend outdoor sporting events and up to 1,000 Lord Addington (LD): My Lords, it a good thing spectators at indoor events is a welcome step forward that we have this debate, even if it is nearly a week late. after an unprecedented period of professional sport The old adage that a week is a long time in politics being played behind closed doors. Noble Lords will must be ringing very loudly in the Minister’s ears at know that these numbers are the absolute cap, with a the moment, because we have had many announcements percentage system in place for clubs with lower-capacity that add to this Statement. The biggest, shall we say, stadia. Can the Minister provide the evidence base elephant in the room— or dog that is not barking—is behind the 4,000-person attendance limit? what is happening with arrangements for the upper Manchester United’s Old Trafford can ordinarily tiers of professional football. If the Minister knows host well over 70,000 fans. Even the old wooden anything, now would be a good time to tell us. I would stands at Goodison Park will fail to emit their customary understand if no arrangement has been reached, but if creak with just 4,000 fans present. Twickenham Stadium anything can be told about that it would help us. has a capacity of 80,000. While it is not desirable to To return to what is said in the Statement, we need have these grounds full at this time, on what basis was a little more flesh on the bone. For instance, I live in it determined that they were unable to safely host a the village of Lambourn in the “Valley of the Racehorse”. higher number? Premier League clubs have spent large There, the National Trainers Federation has been asking sums preparing their grounds to accommodate socially how the money going to the racing establishment is distanced fans. Similar steps have been taken by rugby going to trickle down to its members. Without people clubs and others in anticipation of reopening their who look after the horses, you do not have any event. doors. While they will be excited to welcome even a It is not that straightforward and there are details to small number of fans back home, doing so is likely to go through. result in financial losses, which will become unsustainable The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has already had a if the cap is not revisited. good go on the fact that getting some fans into the Therefore, when are we likely to see a detailed road grounds will help a few clubs. But one of my noble map for increasing sporting capacities? Will DCMS friends has pointed out to me that certain lower league commission new test events to inform such a road clubs are getting gates of 18,000—I think Portsmouth map? Has any consideration been given to previous does, if my noble friend the Chief Whip has told me test events and the data they have provided? I draw right. He is nodding at me, so I am fairly safe there. If attention to the case of Brighton & Hove Albion. that is the case, how will this potential lifeline and way There was approval in principle for crowds of around out compensate them? The reform of football has 8,000; that would move individual fixtures from loss to been made more pressing by Covid. We should be profit. Even for lower league clubs, which desperately looking at the fact that the current model is virtually need that additional income, the current offer is unlikely unsustainable. I do not think that we should forget to satisfy demand from season-ticket holders who that at any time. have paid up front. I am told that AFC Wimbledon, On rugby union, I heard a question today that which has just completed its historic return to a new I want to ask the Minister. What do you do about the stadium at Plough Lane, had over 3,000 season-ticket money for the Olympic sport of sevens, which was holders last year and are expecting that number to cut due to this? I have heard that an arrangement is climb. If the area remains in tier 2, it means that the coming to help with that, which is good news, but club will admit only those who have already paid, rugby union may well be the last sport to play again. rather than making new money. Let us face it, old prop forwards like me know that we I stress that we do not want to rush this. We need to form our own special non-socially distanced, germ- be confident that stadia of all ages and sizes can cope spreading little units around the place when we play with the return of fans and that there are appropriate the game. When do the Government expect there to protocols in place, not only around grounds but on be sufficient immunisation to allow us to come back? transport networks as well. However, sports clubs at Intelligent things have been done about trying to get a all levels need to see progress, not just one-off different version of the game played. Rugby union may announcements. This is true in relation to support be the best example, but all sports have these questions. from government and clubs’ ability to raise their own Will the Government have some form of timescale to funds. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Botham, for allow the fans in and the playing of the game in all example, will be hoping that Lord’s is able to welcome circumstances, especially at community level? a higher number of spectators when cricket returns We may have gone a little wider than the Statement next summer—otherwise he, like the rest of us, will be in this debate but a lot has happened. It would help if obliged to watch remotely and that cannot be right. we could find out now exactly what the Government I want to close with one final question regarding are thinking. the Prime Minister’s recent announcement. We know from the Independent SAGE group that the ability for TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department families to mix at Christmas may require new restrictions for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) in January and beyond. If that comes to fruition, is it (Con): I thank both noble Lords for their questions the Government’s intention that attendance at sporting and their welcome to this funding. I echo the noble 353 Sport Sector: Financial Support[25 NOVEMBER 2020] Sport Sector: Financial Support 354

Lord, Lord Bassam, in thanking the civil servants in professional sport. We have a lot of hope, based on the both DCMS and the Treasury for their incredible work vaccine results announced recently and on the level of on this package. testing that we are now achieving. We are very grateful The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, started by asking to the Sports Technology and Innovation Group for about timings for the disbursement of these funds. its advice on how we can bring fans back as quickly as This package is aimed at those clubs really facing an possible. existential threat, particularly as a result of the recent The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) lockdown and the inability to allow fans back and the (LD): My Lords, we now come to the 30 minutes income that comes with that. We are keen on and allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions committed to getting the first tranche of funding out and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum by year end. More detail will be published about that number of speakers. shortly.There will also be an independent board overseeing the disbursement of the funds. 8.01 pm The noble Lord also asked about funding for the Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]: My Lords, I very much women’sgame. I must confess that I heard my honourable welcome this Statement as an important rescue package, friend the Minister for Sport be slightly more vehement for that is exactly what it is. I note that £250 million of about the importance of those clubs receiving funding the £300 million is in the form of loans. When can we from the Government treating women and women’s expect the terms of the loans and details of the repayment sport exactly the same as men’s. The criteria for this holidays to be finalised, rather than the final deals fund are identical for women’s sport and men’s sport. themselves? I hope that the Minister will commit to a I fear that I will disappoint the noble Lord regarding comprehensive review of all Covid-related support for a further update on the fan-led review. As he noted, it sport by the end of March, when this package ends, is a manifesto commitment and we are committed to because long into 2021 the impact of Covid-19 will doing it. Progress is being made but no firm date has still be delivering a hammer-blow to the decimated yet been settled on. income statements of both winter and summer sports Both noble Lords talked about the importance of across the United Kingdom. returning fans to stadia. We are all enormously keen Baroness Barran (Con): I thank my noble friend for to get fans back and delighted by the recent decision his question. We will publish the application process that in tiers 1 and 2, in particular, there will be capacity and wider conditions for loans in the winter survival for up to—in tier 1—4,000 fans in the open air. As the package in the next few weeks, but the principle behind noble Lord, Lord Bassam, noted himself in a later the loans is that they should be affordable in terms of comment, the decisions about the number of fans in a both the interest rate and the repayment period. In stadium are based not purely on the capacity of the relation to a review of sport, I am not aware of a formal stadium but also on the design, entrances, exits and review of the sort that my noble friend suggests, but I travelling arrangements. We have done a number of stress that the team in DCMS is working extremely closely pilots which have helped inform our thinking. We will with all sports to get as thorough and comprehensive watch and learn from the opening-up that is shortly to as possible an understanding of the situation and how be with us, and then we will build on that. But we we can relaunch stronger in the new year. really do feel optimistic about the prospects for this as we go into the new year, and particularly beyond Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]: My Lords, I Easter. draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked specifically of interests. What work have Her Majesty’s Government about rugby union and rightly pointed out the risks in undertaken to explore an equivalent of the hospitality the scrum—to the long list of which a new risk has sector’s Eat Out to Help Out scheme for the sport and now been added for those brave enough to go into the fitness sector and connecting it to a scheme to drive scrum. Weare obviously aware that this is a close-contact activity levels that could support the Prime Minister’s sport and will have particular challenges. We aim to obesity strategy? give more detail on how we hope to address the points that the noble Lord rightly raised around vaccination Baroness Barran (Con): The noble Baroness raises in particular. We are working and hope to be able to the interesting idea of “Work Out to Help Out”, or publish a not-later-than date. As I mentioned, the whatever it would be called. Obviously there are different Health Secretary has been very optimistic about seeing ways of helping different sectors. We have tried to a significant change in conditions around Easter. We focus on a number of direct funding packages. Obviously all look forward to that. there is the £300 million winter survival package; £200 million was announced earlier in the year for The noble Lord, Lord Addington, also asked about grass-roots sport; and there is £100 million for gyms trainers. Obviously, with the £40 million going to and leisure centres, which I am sure the noble Baroness racecourses and the ability for racing to take place, welcomes. there will be a trickle-down benefit to trainers from the prize money from those events. Lord Razzall (LD): My Lords, I hope that noble I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was not at Lords will forgive me for the metaphor that I am his most generous when he talked about the progress opening the bowling on behalf of cricket. I particularly and implied that there would be a stop-start pattern. I want to say that as I see that the noble Lord, Lord Botham, think that we have come a really long way. There is is bowling at the other end—hopefully with me rather light at the end of the tunnel for both grass-roots and than at me. 355 Sport Sector: Financial Support[LORDS] Sport Sector: Financial Support 356

[LORD RAZZALL] Lord Botham (CB) [V]: My Lords, we all welcome The Statement indicates that cricket has the opportunity the injection of £300 million into rugby union and to make an application. Can the Minister confirm that horseracing, and the safe return of much-needed there will be sufficient availability within the £300 million supporters to stadiums, which will be a lifeline to so for county cricket, which is in need of money, if it gets many clubs. Do the Government have any plans to its application together? I would welcome some elucidation financially support cricket, which has faced massive from her as to why county cricket has not so far been financial difficulties as a result of Covid? Is the Minister included. I understand why the ECB is not because it willing to favourably consider direct representations is rather analogous to the football situation, where from all the cricket clubs affected by Covid? you have the Premier League and the lower clubs, and the ECB has had a huge amount of television money Baroness Barran (Con): I thank the noble Lord for from Sky. his question. As I mentioned to the noble Lord, Is county cricket not included because it has not Lord Razzall, we have had confirmation that so far actually made an application yet, or is it to pressurise the ECB has the means to support all the counties the ECB to give more of the TV money to the counties over the winter. We are in conversations with the ECB rather than them getting it out of the £300 million? If and it would be eligible to apply to the contingency neither of those is true, can the Minister please explain fund—but obviously the best thing for all sports will what the counties need to do to receive the necessary be to open up and get spectators back as quickly as payments from the fund? possible. But I would be more than happy to follow up with the noble Lord directly on his suggestion in relation to individual clubs. Baroness Barran (Con): I was wondering which bowler I would rather face if I were batting at this Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con): I draw noble hypothetical wicket—but, with the greatest respect to Lords’ attention to my interests in the register and I the noble Lord, we probably know which one it is. In join at the crease the noble Lords, Lord Botham and answer to his question, the reason that funding has Lord Razzall. My appeal is not for money but for not been made available to country cricket is that we common sense. In that spirit, will my noble friend were reassured by the ECB that it had the means to ensure that the Government are not overly prescriptive support all the counties over the winter. If the restrictions in the measures required to allow a few hundred continue beyond 1 April, we will consider whether spectators to attend a game of county cricket? My some form of additional support is needed. genuine fear is that the cost of doing so may outweigh both the mental well-being benefit and the financial Lord Caine (Con): My Lords, I draw attention to benefit to the clubs. my interests as set out in the register. On behalf of the entire rugby league family, I thank my noble friend Baroness Barran (Con): My noble friend is absolutely and the Government for the additional funding in the right about the value of sport in terms of both physical package of £12 million for rugby league, coming on and mental health. Obviously, with cricket being a top of the £16 million announced in May, all of which summer sport, things may look very different next is vital support for clubs that are at the very heart of summer,but the current limits of 4,000 outdoor spectators their communities. May I also underline the absolute in tier 1 and 2,000 in tier 2 should make a number of necessity of ensuring a return to paying spectators for these games viable. Obviously, cricket as a sport lends the start of the 2021 rugby league season—a season itself to spacing for spectators, and we are truly optimistic which, as my noble friend will know, concludes with that, by the time county cricket restarts, the prospects the rugby league World Cup? It promises to be the for normal crowds will be very good. biggest and most ambitious ever, and I am pleased to say that there is already an unprecedented demand for Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD): My Lords, tickets. what discussions have the Government had with the officers of the British Olympic Association and UK Baroness Barran (Con): Well, I am delighted to hear Sport about the financial implications for both of from my noble friend about the demand for tickets for these bodies if the cancelled Tokyo Olympic Games of the rugby World Cup. I stress that we appreciate and 2020 go ahead in 2021? understand the importance of rugby league to communities around the country and the very positive Baroness Barran (Con): I apologise to the noble benefit it brings to so many people’s lives. One of my Lord, but I will have to write to him in response to his most memorable visits, in the days when we were question. allowed such visits, was to watch the Castleford Tigers women’s team training. It was very cold but it was very Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]: My Lords, I inspiring. To address my noble friend’s question more draw attention to my entry in the register as a trustee directly, obviously we are working very hard to ensure of the Saracens Foundation. I welcome this much-needed that spectators can return to stadia as safely as possible, support for sport. I know that my noble friend, as we and we are working closely in consultation with the have heard, and our honourable friend Nigel Huddleston sporting bodies, health and safety experts and officials in the other place share my strong support for girls’ to do this. We are making real progress. To have a truly and women’s sport. Until we can get back into stadia successful World Cup event, we need a good, sustainable and watch from the sidelines, is there anything that my and solid domestic game, and we are working hard noble friend can do to encourage broadcasters to towards that. showcase more women’s sport? 357 Sport Sector: Financial Support[25 NOVEMBER 2020] Sport Sector: Financial Support 358

Baroness Barran (Con): The noble Lord is absolutely which is very welcome, but what will be needed in the right about the role that broadcasters can play, and my next couple of years as well. Will levelling up include colleagues within the department are liaising closely sport? with them on this point. Baroness Barran (Con): On the first part of the Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl): My Lords, I welcome noble Lord’s question about review dates for increasing very much the financial support for this level of sport, the number of spectators, those decisions are clearly but does the Minister share my concerns about the not taken in isolation and will be part of wider decision- really grass-roots sports clubs—the little clubs, the making on what is allowed within different tiers as we Saturday morning football clubs that are losing their move forward. I fear I cannot add more on that point match fees, and clubs with huge numbers of volunteers at the moment. whom they are losing at the moment? I join the noble The Government well understand the importance Lord, Lord Moynihan, who asked earlier whether the of levelling up and of sport within it. There was Government might consider, once the Covid situation obviously a very important infrastructure announcement has been sorted, that we mayneed a really root-and-branch in the Chancellor’s speech today of £4 billion directed review of everything that is happening in grass-roots to levelling up, but more specifically, on sport, there sport and how it has been affected? have been two important contributions to rugby league so far. We continue to value its contribution and see it Baroness Barran (Con): I am happy to reassure the as a critical part of rebuilding a sense of pride in local noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Moynihan communities. that I will take the suggestion of a thorough review back to the department, but I reiterate what I said Lord McNally (LD) [V]: As the Minister will have earlier about our constant communication. In terms gathered, there is very widespread support for this of the real grass roots, I absolutely echo the noble announcement. But will she make sure that the Baroness’srecognition of the value of those organisations Government follow where the money is going and to their communities, particularly during this Covid ensure that all the recipients pay a proper contribution period, in which they have been setting up food banks to diversity and community activity where they are and providing all sorts of extraordinary help in their located, because that is why they have such widespread communities.That is also why we committed £220 million support? earlier this year to make sure that exactly those The other thing is the dog that is not yet barking in organisations survive. the night: whether the Premiership will cough up enough money for first and second division football, Lord Hayward (Con) [V]: My Lords, I declare my which have many clubs in communities in real danger. interest, as recorded in the register. May I ask the I again put the idea of the Government threatening a Minister for clarification in relation to this very welcome windfall tax on transfer fees and television money if news about spectators being allowed back into grounds? the Premiership does not get more realistic about the Will loans or grants that are given to clubs or organisations kind of help it will give. be affected by the number of spectators who are allowed into the grounds? Will the decision on numbers Baroness Barran (Con): The noble Lord makes an allowed in be taken by the Government or in association important point about following where the money is with the HSE, the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, going. Part of the role of the independent board is to local police and the like? do just that. On the Premiership, as I and my honourable friend the Minister for Sport have said several times Baroness Barran (Con): In response to the first part from our respective Dispatch Boxes, we believe that of my noble friend’s question I can say that, as we the Premier League has the financial capacity to support work through the individual awards with the different the wider football family. We hope that it has the good sporting bodies, we will take into account their projected sense to act on that quickly. revenues. So this is about financial need; it will have some bearing on that. With regard to the planning Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]: My work we are doing around letting fans back into Lords, I return to two questions asked by the noble stadia, we have been working closely with the Sports Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, about the percentage Grounds Safety Authority and, as I mentioned earlier, of funding going to women’s sport and what the the Sports Technology and Innovation Group. Minister considers to be the appropriate percentage. I understand that she might not be able to answer now, Lord Mann (Non-Afl): On what date will the number but perhaps she could write to us later. In responding of spectators be reviewed, so that we can answer the to the question, she said that the criteria are identical question of why Germany can get far more people for men’s and women’s sports. Would she agree that into its stadiums every week than we will allow? Will equality does not equal equity, particularly when we the Minister ensure that professional and grass-roots consider the starting position of women’s sport, with sport are a crucial part of the Government’s levelling-up grass-roots participation four percentage points lower agenda? In many towns in the north of England, than for men? Considering its long history—whether people do not have much money in their pockets. They the Football Association actively oppressing women’s will not have much money to spend going to rugby football, the Olympic movement refusing to allow league, which will need continued support if its clubs women to participate in marathons and longer races are to survive. It is not just the money to keep going now, for many years, or the attitudes of broadcasters, as the 359 Sport Sector: Financial Support[LORDS] Private International Law Bill 360

[BARONESS BENNETT OF MANOR CASTLE] will understand all too well the significance of their noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, just referred inclusion at this time. Will she nudge her department to—does she really not think that there should be a towards grass-roots, community sport, from where the bias towards women’s sport to deal with historical next generation of Beckhams and cricket’s Moeen Alis disadvantage? may come?

Baroness Barran (Con): I think the noble Baroness Baroness Barran (Con): I reassure the noble Baroness may be conflating two things. This package is very that my department does not need any nudging in specifically for those sports clubs in real financial relation to the importance of sport for young people. difficulty. It is the same whether it is a woman’s sport As I mentioned, we committed £220 million to grass-roots or a man’s. This is not about trying to level the playing sport, much of which will benefit young people. Crucially, field between men’s and women’s sports. The noble we have also worked closely with the youth sector Baroness made entirely valid points about the wider throughout the pandemic, so that youth workers are context for women’ssport and I hope she will acknowledge able to carry on providing the critical support for just that progress has been made. We are determined to the vulnerable young people to whom the noble Baroness make further progress, but this specific package is rightly alludes. about ensuring the survival of clubs. In that regard, women’s sport is on an equal footing to men’s. The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD): My Lords, all supplementary questions have Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]: My Lords, I begin by been asked and answered. extending my condolences to the worldwide fans of Diego Maradona, who died earlier today. Youth provision by skilled staff has been a vital Private International Law source of safe space and plays a critical role for young (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL] people who may be vulnerable, empowering them through Returned from the Commons recreation and sports activities, including, in my area, women’s bicycling clubs. Many youth organisations The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to. have had their services shut down, which may leave current generations excluded. I know that the Minister House adjourned at 8.22 pm. GC 1 Arrangement of Business [25 NOVEMBER 2020] Nutrition Regulations 2020 GC 2

Grand Committee However, this instrument is now needed to give effect to the Northern Ireland protocol, which was agreed last Wednesday 25 November 2020 year.TheprotocolrequiresthatEUlegislationiscontinued in its application in Northern Ireland. Consequently, The Grand Committee met in a hybrid proceeding. the instrument removes Northern Ireland from the scope of the 2019 regulations and changes UK-specific Arrangement of Business references to Great Britain, preventing functions being Announcement transferred from the European Commission to the Department of Health in Northern Ireland. 2.30 pm Furthermore,theinstrumentrevokesthe2019Northern Ireland regulations, which amended domestic nutrition The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol legislation in Northern Ireland in preparation for the of West Kilbride) (Lab): My Lords, the hybrid Grand end of the transition period. These amendments and Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in revocations see that EU nutrition legislation continues person, respecting social distancing, others are to apply in Northern Ireland and that our obligations participating remotely, but all Members will be treated under the protocol are met. The instrument also remedies equally.If there is a Division in the House, the Committee deficiencies in retained EU nutrition legislation that will adjourn for five minutes. have come into force since 2019. These concern infant formula and health claims that can be made about Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) foods. Regulations 2020 The devolved Administrations have been involved Considered in Grand Committee in this instrument’s preparation and have consented to it. Further to this, we have provisionally agreed a 2.30 pm common framework for nutrition that will maintain Moved by Lord Bethell existing standards and promote common approaches to nutrition policy in the future. I am grateful to the That the Grand Committee do consider the Administrations for their continued collaboration. Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations Scrutiny by the House of Lords Common Frameworks 2020. Scrutiny Committee and committees in the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies have now been completed, TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department and their valuable input is currently being considered. of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con): My Furthermore, the draft instrument was the subject Lords, nutritional-related labelling, composition and of a four-nation public consultation in July.Respondents standards are regulated to protect public health. It is represented sector stakeholders across the UK, essential that food businesses and enforcement officers including trade bodies, local authorities and businesses, understand the specific nutrition-related rules that must with the majority supporting our approach. The be complied with. This instrument enables that, making Government’sresponse to the consultation was published technical amendments to ensure that the regulatory on 24 September. Since then, my department has framework remains functional throughout the UK updated guidance for businesses regarding practical from 1 January 2021. It implements no policy changes. changes to nutrition legislation from 1 January 2021. Trade from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK That, too, was tested with stakeholders and published will take place as it does now. At the end of the on GOV.UK on 17 November. transition period, businesses in any part of the UK This instrument proposes no significant changes may continue to place their goods in any part of the and, consequently, we estimate that there will be no UK internal market without new restrictions. significant impact on industry or the public sector. I Primarily,this instrument reflects the Northern Ireland assure noble Lords that the SI will provide continuity protocol by amending the Nutrition (Amendment etc.) for business and consumers following the end of the (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and revoking the Nutrition transition period and uphold our obligations under (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations the Northern Ireland protocol. I beg to move. 2019. It also remedies deficiencies in retained European Union nutrition legislation which have come into force since March 2019. It delivers continuity for businesses 2.35 pm and consumers by allowing nutritional products to be Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]: My Lords, I manufactured and sold to the same world-leading thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for setting out standards. these regulations very clearly and for dealing with the By way of background, I am sure that everyone will consultation on them. As he rightly said, the essence welcome a brief summary of the 2019 regulations. of these EU exit regulations relates to the Northern Made in preparation for our exit from the EU, those Ireland protocol and the withdrawal agreement. The regulations make technical amendments, changing EU nutrition legislation will continue to be applicable redundant EU-specific references and transferring in Northern Ireland, while in Great Britain we will be functions and powers currently held by the European able to set our own regulatory regime. Commission to the appropriate authorities in each of As my noble friend said, a consultation was carried the UK’s constituent nations. This is with the explicit out between 9 and 30 July 2020, inviting participation aim of mirroring the existing regulatory system following from food manufacturing and nutrition industry the end of the transition period. representative groups and the public more generally. GC 3 Nutrition Regulations 2020 [LORDS] Nutrition Regulations 2020 GC 4

[LORD BOURNE OF ABERYSTWYTH] think my noble friend said—on 17 November. I hope Perhaps I may ask my noble friend, first, why the that has given those concerned sufficient time to become consultation period was so short. There were only acquainted with the guidance and the impact of the 18 respondents. The responses seem quite probing and regulations. I welcome that, given the impending nature informative, but such a short period meant that inevitably of the new system that is coming into force. those participating were relatively few in number. I welcome the statement that officials across the I turn to some questions based on the consultation. four nations will continue to work closely together to Some 71% of respondents thought that the wording prepare the United Kingdom for the end of the transition and technical details of the process needed clarification. period. As I say, it is becoming very apparent that our That is a relatively high percentage, admittedly of a devolved arrangements within these islands will be small number of respondents, but perhaps my noble increasingly important in the years ahead, and that is friend can say what Her Majesty’s Government are now looming with the new period starting with 1 doing in response to that. There were also requests for January 2021. I welcome that and support the regulations, simplification of the process. subject to the remarks that I have made. With regard to access to information on the process, trade bodies requested more regular updates than the 2.46 pm current quarterly BEIS updates.What are the Government doing in response to that? Is there to be a more Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]: My frequent response from BEIS to help trade bodies and Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the those who need these updates? Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee and thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations In the consultation, the impact of the Northern which are being introduced primarily to implement Ireland protocol was also raised by many, expressing the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and to address concern about the divergence. The consultation response the deficiencies in retained EU law. I agree with the —in, I have to say, a rare example of it perhaps not Minister that it is important to protect public health. hitting the nail on the head—talked about how people were unable to estimate exactly how they would be I will concentrate on the areas that have an impact impacted individually. That is scarcely surprising; it is on the Northern Ireland protocol and the intersection not really evident at the moment, so I do not think with that particular common framework. I have certain that that is a sufficient answer to that concern. questions that I would like the Minister to answer. If he cannot provide answers today, perhaps he will On the consultation process, 82% expressed themselves provide them in writing to me. I underscore the point satisfied, although there was some concern about the again that public health is of vital importance. Therefore, short period of the consultation, to which I have where do the regulations intersect with the Nutrition already alluded. Related Labelling, Composition and Standards common Perhaps I may compliment the Government on the framework, which is currently subject to ongoing consultation response that we see here. All too often consultation? Was cognisance taken of this provisional over the years, as I am sure other noble Lords will framework in drawing up this statutory instrument? agree, the quality of consultation responses has perhaps From what I gathered from the Minister, that was the not always been what we would have wished for. case. I contend that there are issues and therefore a However, in my view, this consultation response was need for ongoing scrutiny and parliamentary reports set out in a very lucid and straightforward way. It was, where such intersections occur. in many ways,a model. In most cases,it also acknowledges While Northern Ireland officials, Ministers, and shortcomings and seeks to address concerns, and that particularly in this instance the Department of Health is to be welcomed. For example, on divergence, it and Social Care and Minister Swann will no doubt highlights the common frameworks approach, which participate fully in this framework, does the Minister my noble friend also referenced, as successful. I agree anticipate any issues related to policy divergence between entirely with this part of the consultation response, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK at the end of and I hope that we are able to pass that outcome and the transition period? I note that the noble Lord, make this compulsory reading for the ministerial team Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, referred to certain issues dealing with UKIM. The common frameworks approach to do with divergence in relation to the protocol. is successful and works, and it will be increasingly important, given that so much has now returned from What was the nature of the consultation with the Europe and we are dealing with— Northern Ireland Executive and particularly the Department of Health and Social Care and the Food 2.39 pm Standards Agency regarding the content of this statutory instrument? It is interesting to note that although Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. Annexe 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol states that EU nutrition rules will continue to apply to Northern Ireland, I could not find any reference to 2.45 pm that in the initial documents in the provisional common Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]: It is somewhat framework. That may have been corrected in the further ironic that I was just stressing the importance of documentation on this. Why is that the case? The devolved arrangements when we were called to a vote likelihood of divergence will increase over time and on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. I was could potentially have serious implications for the concluding my remarks, but I want to say that I am future operation of the UK-wide framework as well as very pleased that the guidance has now been published—I for public health. GC 5 Nutrition Regulations 2020 [25 NOVEMBER 2020] Nutrition Regulations 2020 GC 6

I come at this from a position of not wanting a consideration is given to the UK’s internal market. border in the Irish Sea, and I come politically from the Secondly, the statutory instrument will ensure a swift, point of view that I do not want a border on the island smooth and orderly EU exit that minimises disruption of Ireland between the UK and the European Union. for business and consumers, which is why I support it. But issues thrown up yesterday by the Northern Ireland Nutrition is an important part of our daily life. In this Retail Consortium have been amplified by the First pandemic era, there are many families unable to have Minister and Deputy First Minister in letters to the nutritious food, so the health of the family suffers, European Commission. There are currently two lists causing long-term harm, particularly to the children. of foods: prohibited and allowed. If we want to ensure that public health is promoted in Northern Ireland, it is important that those foods on the prohibited list, such 2.55 pm as seed potatoes and other types of seeds, can go on to Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]: I thank the Minister that allowed list to ensure a continuation of a varied for introducing these regulations. I agree with the noble diet and varied access to foodstuffs and food supplies Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that the documentation was for all consumers in Northern Ireland. That is vital. both clear and comprehensible. I also compliment her Two weeks ago at Oral Questions, I asked the on her command of these issues, which is of course Minister for the Cabinet Office,the noble Lord, Lord True, entirely to be expected. about this issue, and he said that it was a matter of As the Minister set out, these are important regulations ongoing negotiations. As we are just five weeks from that largely make technical changes to retained EU the end of the transition period, I ask the Minister, the law so that references to the UK become references to noble Lord, Lord Bethell, whether there has been any Great Britain instead. This is because the Department progress on those negotiations or any definite outcome. of Health in Northern Ireland will not have the same It is vital to not only our retail industry, but to public functions transferred to it as the rest of the UK, and health, diet and food standards in Northern Ireland. the amendments will therefore ensure that EU law It is important that flexibilities are introduced to continues to apply in Northern Ireland and that EU ensure that certain foods are moved from the prohibited retained law in England, Scotland and Wales will to the allowed list to ensure good public health as well therefore be effective. as a buoyant economy, and that local consumers have Needless to say, while we recognise that these access to affordable food supplies and are not forced regulations are necessary and reflect the Northern to resort further to food banks. Ireland protocol, they contravene some of the countless I am as guilty as the next person in these debates in commitments made by the Conservative Government traversing and travelling in various directions. As well on the treatment of Northern Ireland. What would be as this statutory instrument on nutritional matters, the effect of this SI if the Government had their way there is the other common framework about food and on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, currently feed policy approaches that throws up issues about the being voted on in the Chamber, and threw the Northern Ireland protocol. I am simply asking for international agreement and protocol out of the window? equality and access to all the same foodstuffs that we What would happen to measures such as this statutory currently have, so that all consumers can access a instrument? good-quality diet at an affordable cost. I understand that the devolved Administrations were involved in the drafting of this instrument, as is The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol quite correct. Can the Minister confirm whether the of West Kilbride) (Lab): My Lords, the next speaker, UK is centred on maintaining existing standards and the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, will be followed by the promoting common approaches to nutritional policy noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. going forward? I agree with the important questions 2.53 pm posed by all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. What assessment have the Government Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]: My Lords, this instrument made of other potential future divergences which might was prepared by the Department of Health and Social arise from, for example, UK food labelling? What Care and laid before Parliament. Its purpose is to safeguards are in place to prevent regulatory divergence? reflect the Northern Ireland protocol by amending We know that labelling specifically is a critical concern and revoking the nutritional regulations 2019 and to for food and drink manufacturers in Great Britain and remedy deficiencies in retained European Union legislation Northern Ireland. As has been outlined, we will have on nutrition. different trading rules in Great Britain and Northern The NIP was designed as a practical solution to Ireland from 1 January. There is a great risk that avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, while labelling use in Britain will no longer be legally recognised ensuring that the UK, including Northern Ireland, in Northern Ireland or on the continent. I hope that could leave the EU as a whole. It necessarily included the Minister can assure the Committee that that will a number of special provisions which apply in Northern not be the case. This is because it is quite possible that Ireland only for as long as the protocol is in force. there may be food labelling regulatory divergence between Nutrition law is a devolved competence; however, the EU and Northern Ireland and Great Britain after this policy area has been designated by the UK the end of transition. Much will depend on trade deal Government for consideration for a common approach. negotiations, which may very well require regulatory The justifications for a common approach are twofold. alignment, including requirements for food manufacturers First, as these laws originally relate to the cohesion of exporting across the channel to update their food the EU single market, it is appropriate that similar labels for products placed on the UK or EU market. GC 7 Nutrition Regulations 2020[LORDS] Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020 GC 8

[BARONESS THORNTON] ever to hove on to the agenda, we would of course consult This is not a long lead-in time. Does the Minister on any new regulations, and that would be the time to recognise the impact that delays in negotiations have take on board comments from industry. If a common had on operators? Is he confident that operators will approach cannot be agreed or would not be appropriate have enough time to apply these changes, especially for one or more nations, and divergence between the given the additional workplace challenges many have UK nations occurred, the UKIM Bill provides for faced due to Covid? goods made and labelled in any of the UK nations to It is also conceivable that there would be the political be recognised and sold in any of the others, subject to will to change current EU laws where there are particular the NIP, without discrimination. public health concerns in the UK, including measures I hope very much that I have been able to answer around, for example, addressing the obesity crisis by the questions raised by noble Lords, and with that in requiring calorie contents in alcoholic drinks. Given mind I commend these regulations to the Committee. the link between Covid-19 risk factors and obesity, for example—and that is a good example—will the Minister Motion agreed. confirm whether the Government have any such plans to deal with that kind of eventuality? The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab): The Grand Committee stands 2.59 pm adjourned until 3.45 pm. I remind Members to sanitise Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, I thank all noble their desks and chairs before leaving the Room. Lords for their extremely valuable contributions to 3.04 pm this important debate. This statutory instrument is incredibly important. However, I reassure noble Lords Sitting suspended. that it does no more than is absolutely necessary to reflect the Northern Ireland protocol in law, ensuring that our obligations under the withdrawal agreement Arrangement of Business are met and to remedy some deficiencies in retained Announcement EU nutrition legislation, and that its passage is critical to ensuring a functioning regulatory system across 3.45 pm England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness My noble friend Lord Bourne asked why the McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): My Lords, some Members consultation occurred over such a short period and are here observing social distancing, others are why it had seemingly so few responses. The engagement participating remotely, but all Members will be treated was as expected. It reflected probably the contentiousness equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a of the proposals or otherwise, and it very much followed face covering except when seated at their desk, to Cabinet Office consultation and guidelines. As such, it speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair completely met the expectations of those who managed and any other touch points before and after use. If the the consultation process.It was none the less an incredibly capacity of the Room is exceeded or other safety valuable process and we are extremely grateful to all requirements are breached, I shall immediately adjourn those who participated in it. the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the I pay my respects to the expertise of the noble Baroness, Committee will adjourn for five minutes. Lady Ritchie, in this matter and thank her very much The microphone system for physical participants for her kind comments about the arrangements and has changed; your microphones will no longer be the process. In essence, her questions were largely about turned on at all times, to reduce the noise for remote what provisions we were making for policy divergence. participants. When it is your turn to speak, please I reassure her that no divergence is anticipated. We are press the button on the microphone stand. Once you not putting in place mechanisms for divergence, because have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn we are not planning to create it. We are simply reading red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting across the current legislation and putting in place through and muting for remote participants remains the same, this SI mechanisms to ensure that it can stay in place. except as demonstrated otherwise by the clerk; that The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about may be slightly different. prohibited foods versus allowed foods. The list of prohibited foods to which she refers is out of scope of Coronavirus Act 2020 this instrument. However, the UK is proud of its world-leading food, health and animal welfare standards, (Expiry of Mental Health Provisions) not least those which relate to nutrition. We will (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 neither lower our standards nor put the UK’s biosecurity Considered in Grand Committee at risk as we negotiate new trade deals. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government remain committed 3.46 pm to promoting robust food standards nationally and Moved by Lord Bethell internationally and to protecting consumer interests to ensure that consumers can have confidence in the That the Grand Committee do consider the food that they buy. Coronavirus Act 2020 (Expiry of Mental Health The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, also asked Provisions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020. about maintaining standards. I reassure her too that Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary we do not currently envisage divergence. Were divergence Legislation Scrutiny Committee GC 9 Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020[25 NOVEMBER 2020] Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020 GC 10

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department In reaching their decision to remove the provisions, of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con): My the Government have listened to stakeholders and to Lords,I am pleased to speak in support of the regulations, Parliament. Three parliamentary committees have which were considered and agreed to in another place recommended that we take this step.The Joint Committee on 18 November. During the debate on the six-month on Human Rights report on the Government’s response review of the Coronavirus Act held in September in the to Covid argued that the need to maintain robust other place, my right honourable friend the Secretary safeguards for patients detained under the Mental of State for Health and Social Care announced the Health Act was heightened, and cautioned that if we Government’sdecisiontosunsettheemergencyprovisions enacted the provisions they would weaken the protections to allow for temporary easements of the Mental Health available. The Women and Equalities Committee noted Act 1983 in England, as they are no longer necessary. concern that the provisions went against the direction These provisions may be found in Schedule 8 to the of travel towards reform of the Mental Health Act, to Coronavirus Act. The regulations therefore seek to “a more balanced system with more safeguards, more choice and enact this decision and so expire provisions in Schedule 8 less restriction”, to the Coronavirus Act 2020. as set out in the independent review of the Mental The emergency provisions, which these regulations Health Act 1983. Further, the Public Administration seek to remove, were introduced to protect the safety and Constitutional Affairs Committee report on the of patients by ensuring that mental health services Government’s response to Covid and the Coronavirus could continue to provide vital care and treatment if Act noted the concerns of the mental health charity there were extreme staffing shortages during the pandemic. Mind and its call for the removal of these temporary The need for them has been kept under continual powers. review, particularly as the Government are extremely conscious that the provisions, had they been commenced, The decision to expire these provisions has been would have had serious consequence for individuals positively received by a wide range of stakeholders— involved. including the Law Society and Rethink Mental Illness, which said that the decision came as a relief to many We are pleased that, due to the resilience and people living with mental illness and their loved ones—and resourcefulness of the NHS in England and its staff, by the House of Commons. the provisions have not been commenced as they have not been needed. It is huge testament to the dedication The Secretary of State was not persuaded, even and dynamism of NHS staff that mental health services during the initial Covid peak, that switching these continue to be able to provide support to people powers on was necessary because our mental health detained under the Mental Health Act, while under services have shown incredible strength and ingenuity, the extensive pressures resulting from the pandemic. for which I express immense gratitude to NHS staff. These powers are no longer required, and these regulations The Government, NHS England and NHS seek to expire them. Improvement have taken a huge range of steps to support mental health services so that, despite ongoing I will take a moment to briefly remind noble Lords workforcepressuresresultingfromtheCovid-19pandemic, about the contents of the provisions that these regulations they can continue to deliver vital care and treatment to seek to expire. The provisions would have enabled an individuals.The department and NHS England and NHS approved mental health professional to apply to detain Improvement issued Legal Guidance for Mental Health, an individual under the Mental Health Act following Disability and Autism, and Specialised Commissioning the advice of one registered medical practitioner, where Services Supporting People of All Ages during the securing tworecommendations was considered impractical Coronavirus Pandemic. That guidance set out how the or would have led to undesirable delay. The provisions Act’s code of practice may be interpreted during this would also have allowed for an extension of the time period. For example, it allows for the delivery of that hospital in-patients could be temporarily detained, statutory forms electronically to allow mental health pending an application for longer detention under the staff to work more flexibly and reduce risk of Covid Mental Health Act. infection. It also set out how video technology can be For those in contact with the criminal justice system used for medical assessments to be carried out remotely who have a mental illness, the provisions in the Act under the Act, to make it easier for two doctors to would have extended the amount of time a person can examine a patient during the pandemic period. be remanded to hospital, allowed an accused or convicted person to be sent to hospital on the recommendation The department has also supported the Care Quality of just one registered medical practitioner rather than Commission in bringing in a modified second opinion two, and extended the procedural time limits for appointed doctor—SOAD—service, which allowed this transferring a prisoner to hospital. service to work remotely. This enabled procedures around assessing and approving the medical treatment Since the Coronavirus Act was enacted, the of patients detained under the Act to continue as Government have remained committed to keeping all normal, rather than enacting powers that would lessen its aspects under close review and have stated that any this important safeguard. These measures, coupled provisions no longer necessary will be sunsetted. The with the resilience and innovation of mental health Act will expire in its entirety two years after the date it staff, have been effective in mitigating pressures on was passed, but also contains a power allowing for the mental health services, avoiding the need to commence expiry of some provisions to be brought forward ahead the emergency powers. of that time. It should be noted that these regulations GC 11 Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020[LORDS] Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020 GC 12

[LORD BETHELL] number of people who have experienced mental health will not expire the transitional provisions within Schedule 8 and stress issues over the past nine months. Many to the Act; however, those will have no legal or practical more will experience these over the winter until we effect. have the vaccine onstream and can get back to some The Mental Health Act 1983 applies to both England sort of normality. and Wales. The application of the regulations differs Capacity will remain a major question for all of us, for each country. I will therefore seek to clarify their and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm effect on Wales. First, those easements which relate to that a proportion of the additional resource being health services in Wales will remain available to Wales. allocated to getting the health service back onstream Health is a matter devolved to the Welsh Government. and undertaking the diagnostic and treatment But, secondly, those easements concerning the operation requirements that have so often been delayed will also of justice under the Act—that is, for patients under apply to the capacity of the mental health services. sentence or subject to criminal proceedings—will be With that, I welcome the regulations very strongly. removed for both England and Wales. These remain matters reserved to Her Majesty’s Government. With the exception of provisions relating to the Welsh mental 3.57 pm health review tribunal, none of these provisions has Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]: My Lords, been commenced. Should it ever be deemed necessary removal of the mental health provisions from the to return to these provisions, the Government will Coronavirus Act, which represented a significant reduction seek to introduce new legislation. in protection and safeguards for people subject to the I thank the staff of NHS mental health services, Mental Health Act is, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who have coped without the need to turn on these said, very welcome. Serious concerns have been raised emergency powers through their hard work, supported about whether it would ever be human rights-compliant by the department and NHS England and NHS to enact the provisions. Even before the Covid-19 Improvement and through innovative approaches. I crisis hit, mental health services were severely stretched, beg to move. with waiting times and barriers to access which would be considered unacceptable in any other area of medicine. 3.54 pm Turning to the scale of need, psychiatrists have Lord Blunkett (Lab): My Lords, I unequivocally reported an increase in patients needing urgent and endorse the Minister’s words of appreciation of the emergency care during the crisis, and the latest NHS work of everyone, at every level, who has maintained a Digital figures show the highest recorded figures for degree of service that has avoided the use of the mental health contact. According to the Centre for powers under Schedule 8. It is an unalloyed pleasure Mental Health, there are approximately 10 million extra not to be giving the Minister a hard time, given that, as people with mental health needs due to the pandemic. far as I can see and looking back in history, no other A survey conducted in late spring by the charity Rethink Minister in the Lords has taken more flak for the showed that almost 80% of people with pre-existing Government as a whole for so little reward. It is mental illnesses reported that their mental health had therefore a pleasure to be able to say that this is a very got worse or much worse as a result of the pandemic, welcome move. and the ONS found that almost one in five adults in Noble Lords will remember, because they were Britain experienced depressive symptoms in June 2020— either in the Chamber or, more likely, watching, the roughly twice the number before the pandemic. Against powerful speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- this backdrop, it is crucial to the nation’s Covid-19 Thompson, back on 25 March, when the Minister was recovery that existing mental health funding commitments putting the Bill through this House. On both disability in the NHS long-term plan are delivered in full and and mental health, she understandably warned of the that services are resourced to support those who had danger to the rights of so many people from the measures new or worsening mental health difficulties because of that were felt at the time to be needed to ensure that the crisis. It is not either/or, it is both/and. functioning services could continue, albeit without the It is of course welcome that eventually an extra safeguards that all of us would wish. This afternoon £500 million was promised in the mental health winter we acknowledge that those safeguards are being put plan, published on Monday, to help with discharge to back in place—their erosion has not been needed—and, community care, workforce issues and addressing waiting as the Minister said, that is due to so much hard work times. This is a good start, but unlikely to be sufficient and ingenuity by so many people. I am sorry that the and, crucially, does not come onstream until the next Welsh Administration feel that they still need the measures operational year, leaving a gaping hole in the tough as a backstop. I hope that they will not, after their winter period ahead. What commitments can the Minister two-week lockdown, feel that they still need to be used. give that some of this new money will be spent on I just ask the Minister in a friendly way whether he preventive work and early intervention to stop mental can identify—if not this afternoon, perhaps he can health issues escalating to crisis point and putting write to me—any service level agreement from the additional pressures on expensive police, A&E and Treasury in relation to the £3 billion announced by the in-patient services? Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of mental health In the long term, it is not just a case of mental services? While the withdrawal of the powers under health services surviving the pandemic; they will need Schedule 8 is entirely welcome, the capacity within the drastically to expand and improve to deal with the system before the Covid pandemic was under enormous long-term impact of social isolation, mass unemployment strain, and that has obviously been made worse by the and pandemic-induced anxiety. GC 13 Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020[25 NOVEMBER 2020] Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020 GC 14

The powers we are debating weakened an Act that and my party colleagues and the Front Bench team was already in need of major reform. The independent who have guided me through the rules and practices review of the Mental Health Act put forward proposals of this House. I must also thank my noble friends to improve the system and increase patient rights. Can Lady Blower and Lady Osamor for supporting me at the Minister update the Committee on when the my introduction. Finally, I owe particular thanks to Government will provide a full response to the independent John McDonnell MP, who encouraged me to take up review and publish their proposals to take forward reform this new challenge, and my family, who have given me of the Mental Health Act, with a clear implementation their support despite the disruption in their lives. timescale? The two-year anniversary of the publication of the Mental Health Act review will be 6 December 2020. I aim to be an asset to this House, contributing my I strongly hope that the Government’s response will particular skills and knowledge. There is my lifetime not be delayed beyond that point. of activity in the trade union movement, where I am glad to join a number of old colleagues. More notable 4 pm is that I am an actuary, the first in this House for more than 70 years. The only other was the first Baron May Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]: My Lords, the coronavirus of Weybridge. He was a prominent public figure and a and the isolation of lockdown are impacting not just formidable character, so it is odd that during his our physical health but our mental health, as people 11 years in the House he never made a speech. That deal with loneliness, stress and anxiety. Whether we means, I am proud to say on behalf of myself and my are working from home, furloughed or travelling to profession, that this is the first time an actuary has our workplaces, the drastic changes to our workday ever spoken in Parliament. I can certainly say that it can take a toll. Employers must play a vital role in will not be the last. supporting the mental health of their workforce by prioritising and promoting a positive well-being culture. One thing that Lord May did was to play a significant The CBI, of which I am president, has been working role in bringing down a Government. Unfortunately, it with firms of every size and sector to help tackle the was the 1931 Labour Government. I may not be able challenge of mental health in a pandemic. The Law to go that far, but I shall use to my time to hold the Society,a member of the CBI, supports these regulations, Government to account. which will expire provisions in Schedule 8 to the Coronavirus Act 2020 which would weaken Mental A key skill that you must learn as an actuary is to Health Act 1983 protections if brought into force. The explain what you do. The application of higher maths Law Society states that it recognises that, at the onset to finance sounds too technical, yet the assessment of of the pandemic, these exceptional emergency provisions mortality sounds too gloomy. As an actuary who were considered potentially necessary to support specialises in pensions, my role has been to provide healthcare professionals in responding to the immediate advice for trade unions when seeking to improve or, crisis, but that, as they have not been used in England increasingly, to defend the pensions provided for their to date, as the Minister said, they should be expired so members. I am sorry to have missed the debates on the as to restore the full certainty of important statutory Pension Schemes Bill, but I have followed them and protections for vulnerable people. know that there are many pensions experts in the The Law Society also recommends that the House. I look forward to joining them, particularly Government consider expiring the provisions under when we consider the further pensions Bill that the Schedule 12 to the Coronavirus Act alongside the Pensions Minister has promised for this Parliament. expiration of those under Schedule 8 being implemented Turning to the statutory instrument before us today, by these regulations. However, if Schedule 12 remains I must state my keen and continuing interest in mental in force, the Law Society recommends that the health. We know that these extraordinary powers were Government publish improved guidance clarifying how not required during lockdown, which is testament to to conduct the required process under these easements the hard work of our mental health staff. They have and provide detailed guidance to assist local authorities coped without recourse to such drastic emergency in making human rights assessments.Do the Government measures and it is clearly right that they should now intend to expire the provisions under Schedule 12 to be expired. Mental health difficulties need to be discussed the Coronavirus Act, which weaken statutory protections during this pandemic. We should understand the for vulnerable people under the Care Act 2014 and the importance of social and financial stability in the face Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, alongside of the virus. We now realise that resilience lies not the expiration of those under Schedule 8? Will the within an individual but within our community. Given Minister commit to providing improved guidance on the dire economic effects of both Brexit and the pandemic, the easements under Schedule 12, clarifying how local it is vital to consider the NHS response to the increase authorities should conduct relevant processes and make in mental health difficulties. The proposed investment human rights assessments? in mental health services is welcome, but it is still inadequate and barely makes up for the loss of support 4.03 pm over the past 10 years. We need more investment. We Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) (Maiden Speech): My also need to modernise the Mental Health Act. Public Lords, I thank everyone whose kindness has made attitudes have improved markedly in the past 10 years, taking on my new role so straightforward. I thank the but the law has failed to keep pace. Of course, the doorkeepers and attendants who have guided me more pandemic has slowed progress, but we need the promised than once along different corridors. I thank the White Paper. Can the Minister promise to bring it parliamentary staff who have supported my induction, forward as a matter of urgency? GC 15 Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020[LORDS] Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020 GC 16

4.08 pm in the past few weeks, so if I find the noble Lord, I will Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]: My Lords, it is try to put him on the right track, although that will a great pleasure to follow my noble friend and I probably get him even more lost. congratulate him on a fine maiden speech. As he said, For once, I want to congratulate the Government he brings to your Lordships’ House a wide range of on rolling back a piece of legislation. Indeed, I hope experience in the trade union movement, service on that we will see a lot more of this because it seems that the GLC and as chair of ILEA, where he was a so much of the Coronavirus Act 2020 is draconian, forceful champion of comprehensive education. However, disproportionate and frighteningly illiberal. Even the I rather think that his being the first actuary to enter assurance that it is temporary or for an emergency is the Lords for more than 50 years will cause the most of little consolation. I would personally expire the challenge to your Lordships. He will discover that we whole Act, but perhaps the Minister could start by float figures around the House like confetti to justify looking again, as has already mentioned, at the provisions whatever position we happen to take. Happily, this in Schedule 12 that also severely weaken the statutory usually goes unchallenged, yet with my noble friend in protection for the vulnerable. place I suspect that we will need to be on our mettle The need to protect the vulnerable against an and to expect robust scrutiny in the future. overweening and arbitrary state power is exactly why As my noble friend said, it has not been necessary Schedule 8 was always such an egregious and frightening to use the powers in the regulations and their removal position. For good reason, sectioning people is made is warmly welcomed. Although the regulations are difficult. The power to deprive individuals of their concerned with the requirements under the Mental liberty under the aegis of mental health and for their Health Act 1983, this debate inevitably raises wider own good has a sinister history: think of the lunatic issues in relation to mental health provision during the asylums of the past, the Soviet use of psychiatric pandemic and beyond. hospitals, and so on. We are right not to section We know that the pandemic has had a significant people lightly, but perhaps the Minister could reflect impact on the country’s mental health and well-being. on a number of unresolved ironies. What is the Minister’s assessment of this and what Lockdowns themselves are an example of the state measures are being taken to restore services and deal depriving the whole citizenry of their liberty under the quickly with the backlog of patients? Does he agree veil of public health. Locked up and locked down is a with the assessment of Scientists for Labour that there thin line in my view. Can the Minister assure us that has been a stark decline in the availability of services? when the lockdown ends on 2 December, it will not Research by Mind from May 2020 reported that the happen again? One worry about Schedule 8 has been restrictions on seeing people, being able to go outside the extension of the length of time that the mentally ill and worries about the health of family and friends are can be incarcerated on the say of one doctor. My the key factors driving poor mental health. The Centre worry is the endless and never-ending extension of the for Mental Health predicts that at least half a million length of time that society is incarcerated on the say of more people may experience a mental health problem one—dare I say?—Matt Hancock. as a result of the pandemic. Does the Minister agree? Will the Minister comment on the devastating impact As part of the lockdown in March, dramatic changes that we have heard about so eloquently from fellow were made by NHS mental health services, including noble Lords that lockdown measures have caused a lot discharging patients from in-patient community services of damage to mental health in the community. Many, and moving to online provision. Has the impact of both young and old, are consumed with anxiety,deprived that been measured? Does he accept that eye contact of their autonomy, subject to a form of solitary often plays an important role in cognitive behaviour confinement and feel lonely and isolated. There is also therapy? We need to reflect on that before assuming fear not only of the virus but about the cataclysmic that services can always be online in the future. Will effect of lockdown on jobs and livelihoods. the Minister agree to publish a comprehensive plan to Sufferers of dementia in care homes are locked restore levels of service, including a thorough assessment away from families and stimulation, leading to a of what changes in demand for services are arising deterioration in their mental capacity, and in some from the pandemic? instances, tragically, to premature death. In other words, lockdown and its ugly sister, tiering, are bad for the The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness mental health of the well, let alone the mentally ill. McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): My Lords, the noble I have a final question. I note with horror that the Baroness, Lady Warsi, has withdrawn from the debate Welsh Government are not expiring Schedule 8. Will and so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, the Minister do what he can to cajole or persuade his Lady Fox of Buckley. counterparts in the Senedd as soon as possible? I declare an interest as I am from north Wales, but I find 4.11 pm it rather shameful that the mentally ill in Wales seem to need safeguarding from their own Parliament. Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl): I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I know that he is well respected by trade unionists outside this 4.14 pm place and he will bring to us a refreshing brand of Lord Walney (Non-Afl): My Lords, I add my praise politics. We will not always agree, but I like someone to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, on making who gives us a feisty challenge. He cannot possibly an accomplished maiden speech and I welcome him to have got lost here as often as I have done as a new girl the House. He notes that he is the first actuary ever to GC 17 Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020[25 NOVEMBER 2020] Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020 GC 18 speak in the House of Lords. I guess that it is something It was, on that basis, wrong to take away the safeguards of a coincidence that at least two former Ministers in that are the subject of these statutory instruments, and the Department for Work and Pensions will have had I am very glad that they have not had to be used. They a great deal of contact over the years with actuaries: have not had to be used because of the extraordinary the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Hunt of efforts of both staff and indeed patients in the early Kings Heath. I served as a special adviser with the part of this year. Both Mind and Rethink have done a noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and we had a number of considerable amount of work talking to people who conversations with actuaries over the years. I hope were in acute services in particular. The surprising that this does not damn him with faint praise, but the finding was the extent to which patients were deeply speech of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was the most grateful to staff for continuing to look after them engaged and enlivening to be given by an actuary that when the staff might well have been putting themselves I have yet had the privilege of listening to. I know that in danger. he will enlighten the House in many ways in the years The extent to which patients were comfortable with ahead, and I welcome him. incarceration during Covid was directly related to two Let me praise the Minister and his colleagues in the factors: first, their ability to contact friends and family Department of Health and Social Care for taking this remotely and, secondly—because they are people just early step to remove these provisions. It is an unusual like the rest of us—the extent to which they were and commendable act to take swift action on a measure enabled to get out into the grounds and get fresh air. It that was due to expire anyway, and it sends a welcome is worth noting at this point that, in the recently message about the Government’s attitude to mental announced hospital-building programme, only one of health issues in that they have clearly heard and the new hospitals will be a mental health hospital. understood the grave concerns of many advocacy Given that we are likely for some considerable time to groups and individuals about the draconian level of be going in and out of periods of physical restrictions these powers. It will help vulnerable individuals at an because of the virus, we should do well to look at the incredibly difficult time in their lives because of the physical estate of mental health services. trauma of lockdown restrictions to know that these I agree with others that the £3 billion announced is provisions are no longer hanging over them. Let me very welcome, but there is a grave danger that it will be give credit where it is due. stretched way too thinly. A lot of it was earmarked I will echo a number of previous speakers in raising before we entered the current situation. As others have concerns about the overall system. It is a symbol of said, and as the studies done by Mind and Rethink the way that public services tend to act in that they have shown, it is evident now that people are coming have a bare level of functionality at the crisis end but into community services with a greater degree of severity remain desperately lacking at the preventive and of mental distress and agitation. This is a clear signal therapeutic end of mental health provision, which that we will, in the coming months, see a much greater remains a yawning gap. As many speakers have said, level of more severe illness if we do not put money including the NHS Confederation, the peak has probably now into rapidly accessible community services—patients not yet come, and I hope that in the months ahead we are telling us that they cannot access those services. will hear far more from the Government and the What efforts will be made to ensure that input of both Minister about what action can be taken on that front. staff and resources into a greater degree of community services? 4.17 pm In all the Government’s lockdown announcements, Baroness Barker (LD): My Lords, I warmly welcome I have never seen anything acknowledging that those the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, to your areas of the country that have been under severe Lordships’ House and congratulate him on his speech. lockdown for several months might have a greater I was unaware of his professional background, but his need of mental health services than those that have explanation has led me to understand why there is not. Is that part of the analysis that the Minister’s such a sense of excitement among those Members of department is undertaking? This is part of the question your Lordships’ House who are mere accountants. I that I really wish to put to him. We are sitting waiting look forward to the noble Lord joining the long-standing for the Government’s response to Sir Simon Wessely’s gang of Members who take a considerable interest in review. To what extent will the things that been learned mental health and who often act as a bulwark against during these last six months go into that review? For Members of the House of Commons who feel unable example, what have we learned about disproportionate to take action on mental health legislation because of levels of mental illness and lack of services among the grief they get from the popular press. black and minority-ethnic communities, and what are I declare an interest as a member of a special we doing about children and young people? Can he advisory panel for Rethink Mental Illness; I am indebted tell us to what extent we have learned the lessons of to it and to Mind for their briefings.When the Coronavirus the last six months and whether they will be in that Act went through, the mental health provisions were new legislation? among the most controversial and the most feared, not only by lobby groups and patient groups—there 4.24 pm was also a considerable amount of discomfort on the Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]: I am very pleased to part of mental health professionals about what was agree with the Minister on this statutory instrument, being done. Under the Mental Health Act 2007, there but I first welcome my noble friend Lord Davies of is already a lack of patient involvement in decision-making, Brixton and congratulate him on his maiden speech specifically in mental health. That is a fundamental flaw. today. He and I have known each other for many GC 19 Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020[LORDS] Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020 GC 20

[BARONESS THORNTON] We are of course still finding out the mental health years, but have not really seen each other for probably cost of Covid, and it is disturbing that the Chancellor the best part of 30 years. We hark back to the days and Secretary of State for Health refer to the additional when I was the chair of that venerable Labour institution funding that the NHS needs to catch up on the cost to the Greater London Labour Party, and my noble friend patients and treatment of Covid, but do not make the was a leading member of the GLC and the Inner same commitments for social care or mental health. London Education Authority. A couple of abolitions, That is of great concern and is very short-sighted, as many general elections and a Labour Government later, my noble friend Lord Hunt said. When will we see the here we are in the House of Lords, and in probably its results of the Mental Health Act review and promised strangest state in its whole history. I welcome my noble reform, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned? friend; he is one of the very smartest people, and an We need to give more attention and resources to actuary, as he says—the first here—and will, I am very mental health. sure, bring great value to our deliberations. And he A study from researchers at Oxford University found should not worry: there will definitely be another that nearly one in five people who has had Covid-19 pensions Bill along very soon. was diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder—such as When we were putting this emergency Covid legislation anxiety, depression or insomnia—within three months on the statute book in March, the easements that are of testing positive for the virus. Not only do we have the subject of this statutory instrument were the cause immediate issues, there are many coming down the track. of much concern, because they concerned people’s liberty and human rights, which should not be put 4.29 pm aside lightly, if at all. That is what we were saying at Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, I thank noble Lords the time. They would have increased the amount of for a thoughtful and at times very generous debate, for time that someone could be detained, decreased the which I am enormously grateful. I thank the noble number of qualified people required in the detainment Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for a remarkable maiden procedure and weakened the Mental Health Act 1983 speech and offer him a sincere welcome. He laid out protections, if brought into force. I am grateful, like his stall very clearly, first as a man of numbers—as other noble Lords, for the excellent brief by the Law many have noted, the debates of the House of Lords Society and its support for these regulations. benefit from those who are numerate and articulate with numbers as well as words—secondly, as a supporter We recognise that, at the onset of the pandemic, of the trade union movement, and I look forward to these exceptional emergency provisions were considered his interventions as a trade unionist; and thirdly, as a potentially necessary to support healthcare professionals man of compassion. He spoke movingly about mental in responding to the immediate crisis. As they have not health and the provisions in these regulations, and has been used in England to date, they should indeed be marked himself out as someone who I hope will make expired—so I congratulate the Minister—and thus an important contribution to our health debates—he restore the full certainty of important statutory protections will be extremely welcome indeed. for vulnerable people. I add my thanks and gratitude to the mental health staff who have made things work We are aware that many people are facing so successfully under the most difficult conditions that unprecedented strains due to the pandemic and the we are able to put aside this part of the Coronavirus measures to contain it. The mental health of everyone Act. is absolutely critical in these unprecedented times. We know that some people will experience exacerbated Are the Government considering expiring the mental health problems as a result of the pandemic, as provisions under Schedule 12 to the Coronavirus Act has been noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. alongside the expiration of the provisions under Schedule 8 Moreover,people with existing mental health conditions to the Act implemented by these regulations? As noble and front-line workers are particularly susceptible. Lords will know, Schedule 12 makes modifications to The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, noted that self- provisions under the Care Act 2014 and Social Services reporting has gone up. Public Health England’sCovid-19 and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, allowing local authorities mental health and well-being report concluded that to suspend their statutory duties to assess, develop the UK population’s self-reported mental health and and review individuals’ care plans, carry out financial well-being worsened during the pandemic. The largest assessments, and meet care and support needs. Local decline was in April 2020. authorities must still carry out the above where a Average levels of mental distress have been reported failure to do so would breach obligations under the as going up, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, noted, European Convention on Human Rights but, for the although by 8.1% measured by GHQ 12, not the high majority of vulnerable people in the care of local levels that some noble Lords have referred to, indicating authorities, this high bar provides little to no protection. an increase in the severity of mental health problems Six months on, it is deeply worrying that the overall. A robust follow-up survey from July 2020 of Government still envisage the need to enact this watering children and young people aged five to 16 who were down of conditions. Can the Minister provide an update interviewed for the national mental health prevalence on the number of times that these provisions have survey in 2017 suggests that rates of probable mental been used, why they were enacted and what impact health disorder have increased from one in nine in 2017 they have had on residents? Can he provide assurances to one in six in July 2020—a very regrettable development. that provisions within this Act for care homes are not We understand that there is increasing evidence of currently being enacted and describe the conditions significant mental health consequences for people who under which they might be used? have contracted Covid and evidence that Covid itself GC 21 Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020[25 NOVEMBER 2020] Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020 GC 22 impacts the central nervous system, which can affect hospitals. NHS staff without symptoms can also be mental health and well-being. Survivors of Covid appear tested at the discretion of their NHS trust. Hospitals to be at increased risk of psychiatric disorder. For can test patients, including those admitted with mental patients with no previous psychiatric history, a diagnosis health conditions, even if there is a higher prevalence of Covid was associated with increased incidence of a of Covid-19 in their area. first psychiatric diagnosis in the following 14 to 90 days, GP surgeries have been requested by NHS England compared with six other healthcare events. to make improvements to ensure that the physical health I reassure all noble Lords who have spoken that of those living with severe mental illness is protected mental health continues to be a priority for this this winter. This includes asking practices to identify Government. We are doing our utmost to ensure that people with severe mental illnesses who are clinically our mental health services are there for everyone who vulnerable and offering those people comprehensive needs them during the pandemic. I reassure the noble physical health checks and follow-up interventions, Lord, Lord Blunkett, that that is why in today’s spending free flu vaccines to those eligible and a care plan review the Government have announced £500 million review as appropriate. more for mental health support for new specialist The NHS has worked hard to keep mental health services for children and young people, plus extra services going during the first peak, using technology assistance for people with severe mental health illnesses where needed, but also face-to-face appointments where and faster help for those afflicted by depression and appropriate. All mental health trusts have established anxiety. 24/7 urgent mental health helplines, where people The well-being and mental health support plan for experiencing a mental health crisis can access support Covid-19 published this week is a demonstration of and advice. In addition, we have provided £10.2 million the Government’s firm commitment to support the of extra funding to support mental health charities, mental health of everyone throughout this winter and including the Samaritans and the Campaign Against beyond. It outlines the support available to people Living Miserably. over the coming winter. This is just one element of our Talking therapies will continue to be made available work to deliver a modern mental health service and remotely, so that people can access help safely from meet the demands created by the pandemic. We have home. The NHS will work to ensure that the option of announced two new commitments to support individuals: face-to-face support, quite rightly alluded to by the first, a winter discharge support package backed by noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, £50 million, which will boost capacity and support Lord Walney, is provided to people with serious mental good-quality discharge from mental health in-patient health illnesses where it is clinically safe to do so. settings to help reduce pressures on in-patient beds Public Health England has published its surveillance and keep patients safe over the winter. Secondly, we tracker to monitor the impact of Covid-19 on the are taking action to support the physical health of population’s mental health. This is a proactive step individuals with serious mental illnesses this winter, which will help to ensure that our response to the including support for systems to deliver local, system-level effects of Covid-19 on mental health and well-being is tailored engagement with patients and to develop national shaped by emerging data. thought leadership on outreach. The Government have committed more than We are absolutely committed to continuing our £400 million over the next four years to refurbish investment in expanding and transforming mental health mental health facilities, getting rid of dormitories in services in England. This will amount to an additional mental health locations and benefiting the patients of £2.3 billion of extra funding a year on mental health 40 trusts across the country. We are committed to services by 2023 to 2024. I reassure the noble Lord, supporting our staff and investing in the workforce. Lord Hunt, that we are taking a range of steps to NHS England and NHS Improvement are also investing support mental health services to be able to manage £15 million to ensure that all staff get rapid access to pressure over the winter period. expanded mental health services. Staff who are referred Above all, it is essential that the message is heard will be assessed rapidly, will be treated by local mental loud and clear across the country that NHS mental health health specialists and, where appropriate, will be referred services remain open for business and will be available to specialist centres of excellence. throughout the winter. The earlier people receive support A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, on their mental health, the more likely they are to Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, benefit. However, in April this year, only 57,000 referrals asked about Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review were made, compared to 133,000 in April 2019. While of the Mental Health Act. I reassure noble Lords that figures for more recent months show that referral rates work is well under way to respond to the review, and are recovering, they are significantly below last year’s. we will publish our White Paper in due course. This will To help address this, last week we launched a new pave the way for far-reaching reforms to the legislation phase of our NHS Help Us, Help You campaign to and practice, strengthening the rights of patients and encourage anyone suffering from anxiety, depression upholding the principles of dignity,autonomy and choice, or other issues. which were enshrined in the review’s recommendations. We will continue to make sure that mental health Since the Coronavirus Act was introduced, the services,including hospitals providing in-patient treatment Government have remained committed to keeping all get equal access to PPE. All health and social care elements of it under close review and to sunset any staff can access priority testing when they show symptoms, provisions that are no longer needed. As I set out including those providing mental health services in earlier, the emergency modifications to the Mental GC 23 Coronavirus Act 2020 Regulations 2020[LORDS] European Union Regulations 2020 GC 24

[LORD BETHELL] to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, Health Act made by the Coronavirus Act were designed chair and any other touch points before and after use. to protect patients by supporting services to be able to If the capacity of the Room is exceeded or other safety continue if unprecedented constraints in the mental requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn health sector put patients’ safety at risk during the the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the pandemic. These provisions were only ever to be used Committee will adjourn for five minutes. as a backstop, as I told the Committee earlier. The microphone system for physical participants The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, referred to the very has changed. Members’ microphones will no longer be moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- turned on at all times in order to reduce noise for Thompson. I remember her words extremely well. remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, Decisions, over which we have no control whatever, please press the button on the microphone stand. about our uselessness will be taken by someone else in Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing the next few months. I am very pleased that the light to turn red before you begin speaking. The provisions have not been switched on. I reassure noble process for muting and unmuting for remote participants Lords that at all times the Government have remained remains the same. The time limit for debate on the conscious of the need to balance those provisions following statutory instrument is one hour. against the rights of individuals detained under the Mental Health Act. Those provisions have not needed to be switched on European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 due to the adaptations that have been made because of (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) the resilience and commitment of NHS staff. As a Regulations 2020 result, we believe that now is the right time to remove them so that it is clear to patients, carers, staff and Considered in Grand Committee stakeholders that they will not be used. The approval of these regulations by this House to remove these 5.01 pm emergency provisions is an important milestone on Moved by Lord Stewart of Dirleton the journey towards much-needed reforms to the Mental Health Act. These reforms— That the Grand Committee do consider the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Regulations 2020. McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): The Division Bell is ringing. I wonder whether the Minister is coming to Relevant document: 32nd Report from the Secondary the end of his remarks. Legislation Scrutiny Committee Lord Bethell (Con): I am. The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Dirleton) (Con): My Lords, the instrument before the McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): If the Minister would like Grand Committee today relates to the question of to finish, I will then adjourn the Committee and there which courts should be able to depart from retained will be plenty of time for noble Lords to vote. EU case law. From January, UK courts, rather than the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU, Lord Bethell (Con): These reforms, which will see will be the final arbiter of laws that govern our lives. In that patients have greater autonomy and control over order to promote legal clarity and certainty in our law their care and treatment, will be set out in the following our departure from the EU, Parliament has Government’s forthcoming White Paper on this subject. provided that EU law that we have chosen to retain is Motion agreed. to be interpreted in line with EU case law which we have also chosen to retain. The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness The way in which our law is interpreted by courts McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): The Grand Committee and tribunals does not remain static over time. Our stands adjourned until 5 pm. I remind noble Lords to departure from the EU has, naturally, brought with it sanitise their desks before they leave the Room, and to a change to the context in which the law is considered, vote, should they wish to do so. and we want our courts to be able to reflect that in 4.41 pm their decisions where appropriate. Without the ability to depart from EU case law, there is a risk that UK law Sitting suspended. will remain tied to an interpretation from the CJEU Arrangement of Business that is no longer appropriate in the UK. Announcement For that reason, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 vested in the UK Supreme Court and, in 5 pm Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary, in specified The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness cases, the power to depart from retained EU case law, McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): My Lords, the hybrid applying their own tests for deciding whether to depart Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members from their own case law when doing so. are here in person, respecting social distancing, while This instrument will extend the number of UK others are participating remotely, but all Members will courts with the power to depart from retained EU case be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to law to include courts at Court of Appeal level across wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, the UK. In making such decisions, the test to be GC 25 European Union Regulations 2020[25 NOVEMBER 2020] European Union Regulations 2020 GC 26 applied by these courts is to be the same as that used As required in statute, the Government have consulted by the UK Supreme Court in deciding whether to senior judiciary across the UK, a consultation process depart from its own case law—namely, whether it is that was also extended to the devolved Administrations, right to do so. as well as to representatives across the legal services The instrument will achieve our aim of enabling sector, businesses and other organisations, and was retained EU case law to evolve in a more timely way open to the public. The consultation ran from 2 July to than otherwise might have been achieved through the 13 August, with a response published on 15 October. status quo. It will also help to mitigate the operational That consultation sought views on whether to extend impacts on the UK Supreme Court and the High Court the power to depart from retained EU case law to the of Justiciary that would have arisen if the power to Court of Appeal and its equivalents across the UK, or depart from retained EU case law were reserved solely to the High Court and its UK equivalents. to those courts. It will further assist those courts by Having considered the responses fully,the Government providing prior judicial dialogue on these complex have concluded that extending the power to Court of issues from the Court of Appeal level. Appeal level courts strikes the appropriate balance I am sure that your Lordships are familiar with the between enabling retained EU case law to evolve more terminology but, first, I shall briefly explain what I quickly, where appropriate, and providing legal clarity mean by retained EU case law. Retained EU case law and certainty.It also assists in managing the operational is defined in the 2018 Act as, broadly, any principles impacts by ensuring cases are considered in a timely and decisions of the CJEU as they have effect in EU way. Furthermore, extending the power at this level law prior to the end of the transition period. This will mitigate the impacts of potentially large volumes includes cases which were referred to the CJEU by the of divergent decisions, both within and across the UK UK, as well as those referred by other member states. jurisdictions, as decisions of these courts are binding This is a vast and complex body of case law that spans on themselves and courts below as well as being persuasive many different areas of law. across the UK’sthree legal systems.Where such divergence In amending the 2018 Act through the European occurs, this can be resolved more quickly by the UK Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, Parliament Supreme Court if it is not required to consider all provided the power to make regulations to extend the questions of whether to depart from retained EU list of courts which may depart from retained EU case case law. law, to set the test to be applied by those courts and to I know that there was significant interest from your specify any considerations that courts should take into Lordships when the power to make this statutory account in coming to such decisions. This instrument instrument was introduced during the passage of the extends the list of courts that can depart from retained 2020 Act. I hope that your Lordships will be reassured EU case law to: the Court of Appeal of England and by the consultation that has taken place and the Wales, the Court Martial Appeal Court, the Court careful approach that is being taken in extending the of Appeal of Northern Ireland, the High Court of power to Court of Appeal level courts only. Justiciary, when sitting as a court of Appeal in relation An impact assessment has been published alongside to a compatibility issue or a devolution issue, and the the consultation response.Anyimpact is heavily dependent Inner House of the Court of Session, the Lands on both litigant behaviour in bringing proceedings Valuation Appeal Court and the Registration Appeal seeking a departure from retained EU case law and, of Court in Scotland. course, the outcome of that litigation. However, based The instrument also sets out that the test to be on a qualitative assessment, we assess that any impact applied by these additional courts when deciding whether on an increase in case volume as a result of this to depart from retained EU case law will be the same instrument is manageable at Court of Appeal level, test used by the UK Supreme Court in deciding whether helps to maintain legal certainty and mitigates pressure to depart from its own case law. This test is well on the UK Supreme Court. established and is capable of being easily understood This instrument enables our courts to be better able and applied without any further guidance. It is anticipated to consider whether to depart from retained EU case that applying the same test to that used by the UK law than the status quo provided in the 2018 Act. Supreme Court will foster a consistent approach across Providing these seven courts with the ability to depart the jurisdictions and, in turn, on appeal to the from retained EU case law will allow timely evolution UK Supreme Court. There is a wealth of case law of our case law. It will relieve pressure on the UK underpinning the UK Supreme Court’s test which has Supreme Court and avoid our case law becoming evolved over time to ensure that courts consider changing fossilised. We are taking an approach that balances the circumstances and modern public policy. importance of legal clarity and certainty with the need The Government have decided against specifying a for the law to evolve with changing circumstances. list of factors to be considered by the courts with the power to depart from retained EU case law, as the UK 5.10 pm Supreme Court’s test is underpinned by a significant Lord Beith (LD) [V]: My Lords, when the EU amount of case law,which provides considerable guidance. withdrawal agreement Bill was being considered in the The instrument does not change the operation of the House, the Constitution Committee had serious concerns doctrine of precedent, which, practically speaking, about the provisions under which this statutory instrument means that when a court reaches a decision on whether is being made. We were concerned that the Bill left it to to depart from retained EU case law, that judgment Ministers to decide which courts could depart from has the same precedent status as other judgments from previous European case law on retained European law that court. and what test they should apply when doing so. That has GC 27 European Union Regulations 2020[LORDS] European Union Regulations 2020 GC 28

[LORD BEITH] drawn into a rush to get rid of as much European case quite serious rule of law implications that were neatly law as possible as quickly as possible. However, all in illustrated by the Minister when he described the all, I think that the instrument is what is needed. possibility of a range of factors being specified when courts are considering such matters, an option that helpfully, the Government in the end did not take. 5.14 pm That is one of the good features of this statutory Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]: My Lords, it instrument. was of great interest to me to listen to my noble and These are not powers that we were content to leave learned friend explain so clearly the origin and scope in the hands of Ministers. There is the added problem of this instrument. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, that the powers could be extended to the lower courts said, the House of Lords was very interested in this whose judgments could not bind other courts—even particular provision when it came forward in this to magistrates’courts. This would lead to legal confusion. year’swithdrawal Bill. The Prime Minister had apparently In a powerful debate in the House at Report, I moved said during the election that every court would be able an amendment drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to entertain this question of whether a decision of the that we would return to the matter. The noble and European Court which was part of the retained case learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, offered to table a law should be departed from. compromise government amendment very much along This House noticed that the provision in the Bill did the lines of this instrument, restricting the extension not contain any machinery for taking a case from, for so that it would cover only the Appeal Court or its example, the magistrates’ court to a court that could equivalents, and specifying that the test to be applied decide the issue. In the amendment that the noble when deviating from previous case law was the same Lord, Lord Beith, referred to—which I proposed—there test that the Supreme Court would apply. But he was was a provision for a method of doing that, so that the embarrassingly overruled by a higher authority in Prime Minister’s wish, or answer, that all courts would No. 10, apparently because the Prime Minister wanted be able to do it would be met by, for example, the no amendments to the Bill at all, presumably for magistrates’ court referring the matter in the way that broader political reasons. I had proposed to the Supreme Court or whichever The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of court might then be able to deal with it. Clashfern, indicated in a speech in that debate that the That amendment was, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, Prime Minister had in fact committed himself in the said, passed by a substantial majority in this House election to every court in the land being able to deviate but, because of the rush to get the withdrawal Act from retained EU law. Anyway, we won the vote, but it approved, it was decided to not give effect to it in the was overturned by the Commons, so we were left with House of Commons. There is, therefore, no method in Ministers holding the power to choose the courts to place for reaching from, for example, the magistrates’ which this would be extended and to choose the test court in England to the Court of Appeal. I raised this that would be applied. Everything would depend on point with my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor the regulations. As the Minister has pointed out, there when he sent me a copy of the instrument. The truth is was a consultation that revealed differences of view. that there is no way of doing that effectively. The results were open to different interpretation depending on how you count those respondents who wanted no This leaves me with a question which I would be deviation from previous case law. That is not my view. glad if my noble and learned friend could answer. If a While based on precedent, law has to evolve over time. point is to be raised about the validity of a judgment For my part, the statutory instrument brings us to the of the European Court that is part of the reserved EU outcome that I sought in my amendment, albeit by a case law and it needs to be dealt with in a case coming very long way round. forward in the magistrates’ court, would the magistrates’ court be allowed to consider that case at all, or is there I accept that these provisions may have avoided some provision in the jurisdiction of the other courts what could have been a bottleneck in the Supreme to allow a case that would normally be within the Court, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas magistrates’ court’s jurisdiction to be referred instead of Cwmgiedd, warned. However,I am bound to question to another court that is not of the same level but which some curiously chosen words in Paragraph 7.5 of the is able to deal with this particular problem? It was Explanatory Memorandum: suggested to me that there are various methods of “Extending the power to this limited list of additional courts going from the lower courts to the higher court, but I will help to achieve our aim of enabling appropriate and timely am not aware—I would be glad if my noble and departure from retained EU case law.” learned friend could make me aware—of whether Is that phrase in place to please the Brexiteers? Is it there is a mechanism to get, for example, from the meant to be a signal to the courts that they should magistrates’ court in England to the Court of Appeal. deviate as much and as soon as possible? If not, it means that the Prime Minister’s answer to the If so, I think that it creates false expectations, question at the election may not be open for a result at because I do not think that that is what the courts will the moment unless and until primary legislation can actually do. The scale of activity will depend on how be introduced in order to make such arrangements. I much litigation is brought forward and the courts can would have thought that such arrangements could be expected to abide to apply the test of the Supreme possibly be made using the rule powers of the various Court with due regard to the facts, to precedent, and rule-making committees, but I am not sure whether to the need to keep the law up to date with changing that it so. Anyway, I am glad to raise it in order that circumstances. I do not believe that the courts will be my noble and learned friend is able to deal with it. GC 29 European Union Regulations 2020[25 NOVEMBER 2020] European Union Regulations 2020 GC 30

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness only for his magisterial textbook on the criminal law. McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab): My Lords, I think a Some 20 years went by, until in the case of R v G&R, Division is about to be called and I therefore recommend the Judicial Committee reversed that decision. that we do not call the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Lord Bingham, who delivered the unanimous opinion Gresford, until after the Division in order not to have of the committee, said: to interrupt him. Is the noble Lord content to wait “Despite its power under Practice Statement … [1966] … to until the Division has been completed? depart from its earlier decisions, the House should be very slow to do so, not least in a context such as this.” Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]: Yes, I am content However,to return to the present and being “reassured with that. by the consultation”—I take it that that is a touch of wry Scots humour on the part of the Minister. From 5.20 pm the Government’s point of view it was a complete Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. failure. The Explanatory Memorandum shows that only 20% of the consultees agreed with this proposed 5.25 pm extension of the power to depart from retained EU case law to other courts and tribunals. Further, only Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]: My Lords, it is 9% believed that these proposals strike the right balance an allergy—an itch that has to be scratched. This between legal certainty and the evolution of the law. bumbling Government are allergic to the very sound Only 5% thought it maintained the necessary degree of the name “the European Court of Justice”. It sends of predictability in the law and provided certainty. a shiver down the spine—if they have one at all—of a significant section of the Conservative Party. I have On the contrary,a decisive majority of those consulted never understood this, since, as I have pointed out on a about the changes proposed in this statutory instrument number of previous occasions, the United Kingdom were against any change at all, on the basis that it was was remarkably successful in developing the procedures a recipe for uncertainty. Why did the Government go of that court and in conducting cases successfully on with this SI? Allergy—it is that nagging itch. before the court on behalf of the UK Government, The clue to the problems which arise is in paragraph 7.4 with a success rate of over 90% of contested cases. of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states: In 1966, Lord Gardiner, then Lord Chancellor, “Without the ability to depart from retained EU case law, made a Statement on behalf of the Judicial Committee there is a risk that retained EU law remains tied to an interpretation of the House of Lords to the effect that the committee from the Court of Justice of the European Union that is arguably was prepared to modify its previous practice and to no longer appropriate in the UK.” depart from a previous decision when it appeared I stress “arguably”. I was wondering whether I should right to do so. He added the very important rider: say anything adverse to this SI at all, since it will “In this connection they will bear in mind the danger of undoubtedly make good money for lawyers. The Minister disturbing retrospectively the basis on which contracts, settlements will know that certainty of the law assists the settling of property and fiscal arrangements have been entered into and of disputes without litigation. Uncertainty breeds also the especial need for certainty as to the criminal law.”—[Official litigation, from which, frequently, only the lawyers Report, 26/7/1966; col. 677.] benefit. I would have thought that, under current Some time ago the Minister told us that that Statement practice, the Supreme Court’s power in the ultimate to is well understood; I am not so sure that that is right. depart from European case law would be more than That need for certainty could not be more important enough to satisfy the Tory itch in the rare cases where than in the context of commercial dealings between the need for departure arises, but now litigants will this country and the EU, over which we are agonising argue at Court of Appeal level for a departure from at this crucial time—this very day. Retained EU law settled EU case law. If the protagonist of a departure will remain part of our domestic law after the transition is successful, it is inevitable that the losing party will period, in five or six weeks’ time. What could be more take the case for a final decision to the Supreme disturbing to contractual arrangements, trade and to Court, which could hardly refuse leave to appeal if our prosperity than to have differing interpretations of the Court of Appeal or its equivalent had introduced an same provisions, set out in the same terms, in both UK ambiguity into the law. The changes will not reduce domestic law and EU law as it is understood by our the burden on the Supreme Court, as has been suggested. near neighbours? Whoever drafted this SI and the Explanatory I have direct experience of the way in which the Memorandum is not in touch with the real legal Judicial Committee, now the Supreme Court, exercised world, the world that responded to the consultation. its power to modify a previous decision. In 1982, I Paragraph 10.9 of the memorandum states: appeared for the appellant before the Judicial Committee “The risk of driving large volumes of cases and legal uncertainty in the case of Caldwell. My case was that recklessness was the main reason cited in opposition to this proposed approach. as an ingredient of a criminal offence involved a It was also noted that the risk of divergence in decisions between subjective state of mind. My argument was defeated jurisdictions was greater with this approach.” by 3:2 in the Judicial Committee on the basis that The Bar Council submitted to the consultation that recklessness could be established objectively even if the defendant gave no thought at all to the risk. Lord Diplock “departing from the CJEU precedent is pointless unless the lower court has power to depart from the domestic precedent as well—but delivered the majority opinion but Lord Edmund-Davies a power to depart from precedents set by high courts (or, in the was on my side. The result of the case drew intense case of the Court of Appeal, its own past judgments) would be a academic criticism, led by Professor Glanville Williams, major disruption of the system of precedent on which legal whom some of us will remember with affection, if certainty depends in a common-law system.” GC 31 European Union Regulations 2020[LORDS] European Union Regulations 2020 GC 32

[LORD THOMAS OF GRESFORD] We accept that the courts should have the power to In response, the Government have preferred specifically divert from EU case law vested in UK law, but that to stick with the current system of domestic precedent, power should remain exclusively with the Supreme thereby making the policy behind this SI, to quote the Court. We request that the Minister address all the Bar Council, “pointless”. concerns expressed by the legal profession and the Another area which introduces a sense of unreality trade unions. Will he outline why the Government is the courts to which this power to depart is extended. have chosen to proceed with these regulations? Can he I know nothing of the land valuation court in Scotland help outline what they plan to do to ensure that the nor am I anxious to know,but, as chair of the Association courts under the Supreme Court are able to operate of Military Court Advocates, I cannot conceive how effectively, and to ensure that the changes do not the decisions of the European Court of Justice are simply result in increased litigation and, ultimately, in relevant to courts martial proceedings in any way even more appeals to the Supreme Court? What whatever, yet the Court Martial Appeal Court heads reassurance can he give to trade unions that their fears the list. Was the drafter of this SI confusing the are unfounded and that workers’ rights will not be European Court of Human Rights, which has had a compromised as a result of the changes proposed in great deal to say on military justice and, as a result of this statutory instrument? its decisions, has considerably improved our system, We believe that, based on current evidence, the with the European Court of Justice? It is frequently Government cannot truly justify the changes brought done. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me. I do not in by the statutory instrument. The Labour Party has suppose that he has, as yet, caught the itch. sought to work constructively with the Government as they have embarked on their programme of introducing necessary secondary legislation across all areas for use 5.34 pm after the transition period. However, on this occasion, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]: My Lords, we do not feel that the changes to be implemented by the Labour Party does not support these regulations. these regulations are justified. We will not vote against When responding to the government consultation, the regulations, but we do not support them. both the Bar Council and the Law Society expressed a strong preference for the power to depart from retained 5.38 pm EU case law to be reserved only to the Supreme Court Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con): My Lords, I am and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. In its grateful for the contributions to this debate and I response to the proposed changes, the Law Society would like to respond to the points made. clearly stated that First, I acknowledge the contribution of the noble “the power to depart from retained case law should not be Lord, Lord Beith, who pointed out that consultation extended to UK courts … beyond the Supreme Court ... Any change from this position constitutes a major shift in the administration has taken place. I emphasise that the terms of the of justice. This could result in a lack of legal certainty through the legislation seek to strike a balance which is intended to emergence of novel judgments that are either not binding on prevent an overwhelming rush of work to the court at other courts or are inconsistent with precedent.” the highest level. We also intend to maintain judicial Those serious concerns should not be overlooked by independence. the Government. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of On 2 July this year, the Government launched a Clashfern raised the matter of the approach which he consultation on whether the extension would be the had urged at an earlier stage whereby there should be a right thing to do. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, went means of referral from the lower courts to the higher—to through the findings of that consultation, and he teased those courts which are capable of taking a decision in the Minister about his wry Scottish sense of humour, these matters. There is no provision for any courts to because of course the results of the consultation were refer below the Court of Appeal, including the magistrates’ very different and far more negative than he intimated. court. Matters will find their way into the appellate My honourable friend Alex Cunningham, when level of courts capable of hearing these matters in the speaking in the other place, explained that granting normal way by decisions being taken and themselves the power to depart from retained EU case law to the appealed against. It seems very likely that appeals in lower courts is likely to encourage litigation by parties these contexts would be more or less inevitable given who hope to overturn an earlier judgment that relied the novelty of the situation but also acknowledging on EU case law, and subsequently will increase the the likely temporary nature of the situation as the law volume of cases. That will inevitably put additional recovers full independence. pressure on the courts, which already face a significant The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke backlog due to both the pandemic and the cuts that we about there being an allergy on the part of the have seen in the courts system over the past 10 years. Government and the Conservative Party against mention Both the legal sector and trade unions expressed of the CJEU. Having gone over my notes and counted their opposition to the Government’s proposals. Unions four occasions when I mentioned that court in the first are hugely concerned about the impact that a mass two pages of my notes, I am driven to conclude that departure from retained EU case law would have on the noble Lord was speaking figuratively, although at workers’ rights. Unions were also clear that the the end of his speech he said that I had perhaps not yet Government should not go ahead with the plan because developed the allergy. it would undermine the doctrine of precedent and On the matter of the response of the consultees, the cause significant uncertainty and disruption to both noble Lord said that I might perhaps be exercising employers and employees. something of a sense of humour when I spoke positively GC 33 European Union Regulations 2020[25 NOVEMBER 2020] BusinessandPlanningAct2020Regs.2020 GC 34 of it, given the overall terms in which the consultation Arrangement of Business had been responded to. However, I take from the Announcement consultation that there was support for the cautious approach taken in terms of the SI, balancing competing 6.15 pm needs between access to the courts, the need to avoid a particular higher level of court being overwhelmed The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness with applications and the need for legal clarity. In the Fookes) (Con): My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee circumstances, it seems inevitable that there will be will now resume. Everyone taking part is here in some increase in the burden of work on the higher person, but I must ask Members in the Room to wear courts resulting from the unprecedented decision of a face covering except when seated at their desk, to this country to leave the European Union. That degree speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair of disruption is, as I say, inevitable. However, I submit and any other touch points before and after use. The that the terms of this SI admit a useful and productive microphone system for physical participants has changed. method by which that new burden of work can most Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all readily be assimilated over time. times, in order to reduce the noise from remote On the noble Lord’s point about the range of courts participants. When it is your turn to speak, please capable of taking on this function with regard to the press the button on the microphone stand. Once you statutory instrument, he made reference to the Lands have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn Valuation Appeal Court in Scotland. The seven courts red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting were chosen specifically for their appellate status, the and muting for remote participants remains the same. availability of appeals to them and the absence of The time limit is one hour. availability of appeals from them. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, Business and Planning Act 2020 indicated the Labour Party’s position and sought (London Spatial Development Strategy) reassurance with regard to the concerns that were (Coronavirus) (Amendment) raised by trade unions and the legal profession. Nothing in this statutory instrument seeks to impose at all on Regulations 2020 any of the courts any view which the Government may Considered in Grand Committee hold. Indeed, the statutory instrument may be read as 6.17 pm emphasising the importance that the Government place on the independence of the courts and of judicial Moved by Lord Greenhalgh discretion. Other than through reiteration of the 1966 That the Grand Committee do consider the test laid down by the House of Lords, there is no Business and Planning Act 2020 (London Spatial prescriptive list of factors to be taken into account by Development Strategy) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) the courts taking on this function. Regulations 2020. The Government see this instrument as an important Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary part of the United Kingdom’s future standing to Legislation Scrutiny Committee ensure that more courts are able to depart from retained European Union case law but in a timely and appropriate The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry manner. We consider this to be a proportionate and of Housing, Communities and Local Government sensible approach to this unprecedented and novel (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con): My Lords, these regulations situation as the United Kingdom becomes the first were laid in draft before this House on 2 November. If country to leave the EU. We consider that extending approved and made, they would roll forward the existing the power to courts at the Court of Appeal level, to temporary disapplication of the legal requirements for the Court of Appeal and to its equivalents, strikes the the Mayor of London to keep his current spatial right balance between the provision of legal clarity development strategy available for public inspection and certainty and enabling the law to appeal more and to provide a hard copy on request. Of course, the flexibly. strategy must be available for inspection free of charge I am grateful for your Lordships’learned contributions online. to the debate. I hope that your Lordships agree that These regulations are part of a wider package of the statutory instrument is a necessary one, therefore I government measures to ensure that the English town commend this draft instrument to the Committee. planning system can continue to play its role and operate safely and efficiently during the coronavirus pandemic. The Plain English translation of the Mayor Motion agreed. of London’s spatial development strategy is the London Plan—that is how it is referred to in local government. The rules that authorities must follow when preparing The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) plans, including consultation and the documents which (Con): The Grand Committee now stands adjourned must be made available at each stage, are set out in law. until 6.15 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks Earlier this year,in response to the coronavirus pandemic and chairs before leaving the Room. and with the support of stakeholders, the Government amended these rules. In the interests of public safety and to ensure that plans could progress through the 5.45 pm system and support economic recovery, we made some Sitting suspended. changes. GC 35 BusinessandPlanningAct2020Regs.2020[LORDS] BusinessandPlanningAct2020Regs.2020 GC 36

[LORD GREENHALGH] The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) Wetemporarily removed requirements for authorities (Con): The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulescoomb, to make plans and other related documents available has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy for inspection at council offices and other places, since of Southwark. these offices are either closed or restricted in terms of who can access them. We also removed the requirement 6.19 pm for hard copies of these documents to be provided on Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op): My Lords, request. Documents are still required to be made I thank the noble Lord for setting out the purpose of available on the authority’s website. these regulations. At this point, I always look with admiration at the skills of many Members of your We also published government guidance on how Lordships’ House who manage to deliver a witty, authorities should consider how they can continue to entertaining speech on a measure of the type before us promote effective community engagement by means today. I do not have those skills and I have no questions which are reasonably practicable, in particular, to reach to ask. I am happy with the regulations. those sections of the community that do not have internet access.Because of the current level of uncertainty 6.20 pm about the future spread of coronavirus, we have proposed Lord Greenhalgh (Con): I have to disagree with the to roll these measures forward for 12 months, from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark—I think he point they expire on 31 December 2020. has an immense degree of humour. I have really enjoyed my time at the Dispatch Box, and in this rather strange My officials have discussed the current measures cubicle, because he does have a great sense of humour. with the Local Government Association’s planning Most importantly, he cares, and he wants the best advisory service and the Planning Officer Society. legislation to come out of this place. It has been a Neither organisation had heard of any issues or concerns. pleasure working with him so far. I agree that this It is important to stress that we all hope the Greater measure is very uncontroversial; we can both conclude London Authority and other authorities will be able that it is good that this is taking place and that it is to discharge these duties sooner than 31 December 2021. proportionate. These changes do not prevent authorities displaying Motion agreed. documents in public buildings or sending out hard The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) copies.Weare simply continuing the existing disapplication (Con): That completes the business before the Grand of the former requirement while coronavirus remains Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise prevalent. These are proportionate and pragmatic changes their desks and chairs before leaving the Room. that have been widely welcomed by public and private sector alike. I commend this instrument to the House. Committee adjourned at 6.21 pm