Professional Qualifications Bill [Lords] Consideration of Bill, as
amended in the Public Bill Committee New Clause 1 Consultation with
devolved authorities “(1) Before making regulations under this Act,
the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor must consult— (a) the
Welsh Ministers, to the extent that the regulations contain
provision which could also be made by the Welsh Ministers by virtue
of section 16(2) (ignoring any requirement for the...Request free trial
Professional
Qualifications Bill [Lords]
Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill
Committee
New Clause 1
Consultation with devolved authorities
“(1) Before making regulations under this Act, the Secretary of
State or the Lord Chancellor must consult—
(a) the Welsh Ministers, to the extent that the regulations
contain provision which could also be made by the Welsh Ministers
by virtue of section 16(2) (ignoring any requirement for the
consent of a Minister of the Crown under section 16(5));
(b) the Scottish Ministers, to the extent that the regulations
contain provision which could also be made by the Scottish
Ministers by virtue of section 16(3);
(c) a Northern Ireland department, to the extent that the
regulations contain provision which could also be made by a
Northern Ireland department by virtue of section 16(4).
(2) The Northern Ireland department which is to be consulted in
accordance with subsection (1)(c) is such Northern Ireland
department as the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the
Lord Chancellor considers appropriate having regard to the
provision which is to be contained in the regulations
concerned.
(3) Before making regulations under this Act in relation to which
the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor has consulted a
devolved authority (or more than one devolved authority) in
accordance with subsection (1), the Secretary of State or (as the
case may be) the Lord Chancellor must publish a report on the
consultation.
(4) But the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the Lord
Chancellor may not publish the report unless either—
(a) the devolved authority concerned (or, if more than one, each
of them) has agreed to the description included in the report for
the purposes of subsection (5)(a), or
(b) there is no such agreement but the period of 30 days,
beginning with the day on which a draft of the report was first
sent to the devolved authority concerned (or, if more than one,
the last of them), has expired.
(5) The report on the consultation must include—
(a) a description of—
(i) the process undertaken in order to comply with subsection
(1), and
(ii) any agreement, objection or other views expressed as part of
that process by the devolved authority (or devolved authorities)
concerned, and
(b) an explanation of whether and how such views have been taken
into account in the regulations (including, in a case where the
Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the Lord Chancellor
proposes to make the regulations despite an objection, an
explanation of the reasons for doing so).
(6) The duty to consult in subsection (1) does not apply in
relation to any revision of the regulations which arises from the
consultation; and, for the purposes of subsection (4)(b), the
draft report need not be identical to the published report for
the period of 30 days to begin.
(7) In this section ‘devolved authority’ means the Scottish
Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or a Northern Ireland
department.”—(.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State or Lord
Chancellor to consult the devolved authorities before making
regulations under the Bill that contain provision which could be
made under the Bill by the devolved authorities themselves and to
publish a report on the consultation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
6.31pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy
and Industrial Strategy ()
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Authority by whom regulations may be made (No.
2)—
“(1) In this Act ‘appropriate national authority’ means as
follows.
(2) Where the regulations—
(a) contain provision relating to England only,
(b) apply to the United Kingdom as a whole, or
(c) contain provision which is not within the legislative
competence of Senedd Cymru, the Scottish Parliament or the
Northern Ireland Assembly,
the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor is the appropriate
national authority.
(3) The Welsh Ministers are the appropriate national authority in
relation to regulations under this Act which contain only
provision which would be within the legislative competence of
Senedd Cymru if contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any
requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown).
(4) The Scottish Ministers are the appropriate national authority
in relation to regulations under this Act which contain only
provision which would be within the legislative competence of the
Scottish Parliament if contained in an Act of that
Parliament.
(5) A Northern Ireland department is the appropriate national
authority in relation to regulations under this Act which contain
only provision which, if contained in an Act of the Northern
Ireland Assembly—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly,
and
(b) would not require the consent of the Secretary of State.
(6) The consent of a Minister of the Crown is required before any
provision is made by the Welsh Ministers in regulations under
this Act so far as that provision, if contained in an Act of
Senedd Cymru, would require the consent of a Minister of the
Crown.
(7) In this section ‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning
as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.”
This new clause is intended to replace the current Clause 16. It
would mean that the Secretary of State would only make
regulations under this Act if they relate to England or the whole
of the UK, or are outside the legislative competencies of the
Devolved Administrations.
New clause 3—List of regulators and regulated professions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a list of all regulators
of regulated professions and the associated professions.
(2) The list must be updated on a regular basis.”
New clause 4—Guidance and assistance concerning mutual
recognition—
“Upon the request of a regulator, the Secretary of State must
provide guidance and all reasonable assistance on how to make the
most of the provisions in the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation
Agreement.”
New clause 5—Consent of the devolved authorities—
“(1) Before making regulations under this Act, the Secretary of
State or the Lord Chancellor must obtain the consent of—
(a) the Senedd, to the extent that the regulations contain
provision which could also be made by the Welsh Ministers by
virtue of section 16(2) (ignoring any requirement for the consent
of a Minister of the Crown under section 16(5));
(b) the Scottish Parliament, to the extent that the regulations
contain provision which could also be made by the Scottish
Ministers by virtue of section 16(3);
(c) the Northern Ireland executive, to the extent that the
regulations contain provision which could also be made by a
Northern Ireland department by virtue of section 16(4).”
Amendment 2, in clause 7, page 5, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) Before making the arrangements, the Secretary of State must
consult the devolved authorities on the functions and operations
of the assistance centre.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake
consultation with the Devolved Authorities on the functions and
operations of the Assistance Centre before it comes into
being.
Amendment 3, page 5, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) Before making the arrangements, the Secretary of State must
ensure there are representatives from each of the devolved
nations on the board of the assistance centre.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure
there are representatives for each of the devolved nations on the
board of the Assistance Centre.
Amendment 4, page 11, line 28, leave out clause 16.
Government amendment 1.
I am today proposing two amendments in relation to the devolved
Administrations. New clause 1 would place a duty on the Secretary
of State or Lord Chancellor to consult the devolved
Administrations before making regulations under the Bill that
contain provisions that could be made under the Bill by the
devolved authorities themselves. The new clause would also
require the Government to publish a report on the consultation.
Amendment 1 seeks to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006 so
that a Minister of the Crown’s consent is not needed for Senedd
Cymru to remove the Secretary of State’s and the Lord
Chancellor’s ability to make regulations under the Bill that are
within the Senedd’s legislative competence.
I know that hon. Members across the House have shown strong
interest in the issue of concurrent powers and devolved
competence. To underline the Government’s commitment to a
collaborative approach on this issue, I am introducing into the
Bill, through the new clause, a new duty to consult devolved
Administrations. The duty includes a requirement to publish a
report in advance of any regulations being made by the UK
Government that would be within devolved legislative competence.
That report should set out the consultation process, and whether
and how the representations made by the devolved Administrations
during the consultation have been taken into account.
My officials and I have engaged extensively with the devolved
Administrations during the passage of the Bill and, although we
strained every sinew to reach agreement on securing legislative
consent, it is a great regret that, unfortunately, we have
exhausted all available avenues. Lord Grimstone and I have held
eight meetings with our devolved Administrations’ ministerial
counterparts. and Lord Grimstone
have held nine industry roundtables, including two specifically
for devolved regulators. There have also been weekly
official-level meetings during the Bill’s passage and numerous
exchanges of letters.
The amendments were originally offered to the devolved
Administrations in December 2021, in exchange for support for
legislative consent motions from their respective legislatures,
but that offer was rejected. But the UK Government are committed
to delivering effective policies that work for the whole of the
UK, so, to underline that commitment, I am now introducing those
amendments without any conditions attached. I strongly believe
that, if both Government amendments are accepted, the Bill
represents the best outcome for both the UK Government and the
devolved Administrations, without impinging on the UK’s ability
to act where necessary.
The regulation of professions often falls within devolved
legislative competence. For that reason, the Bill gives powers to
both UK Government Ministers and devolved Administration
Ministers. Some of the powers may be exercised concurrently to
allow UK Government Ministers to make UK-wide regulations where
appropriate. The most likely use of concurrent powers would be to
implement international agreements on professional qualifications
that are negotiated on a UK-wide basis. It is vital that the UK
Government are able to implement such agreements across the UK in
a timely and consistent manner, as failure to do so could
jeopardise the UK Government’s credibility and ability to secure
ambitious provisions to support UK services exports with global
trade partners.
Amendment 1 would allow for an Act of the Senedd to remove UK
Ministers’ ability to use powers in the Bill to make regulations
that would be within Welsh devolved legislative competence,
without the need to first obtain the consent of a Minister of the
Crown. The Welsh Government would still be required to consult
the UK Government on the removal of powers. That was a key ask
from the Welsh Government. It is in line with similar approaches
taken by the Government on the Environment Act 2021, the
Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020.
In introducing those amendments, I hope that Members can see the
UK Government’s determination to work collaboratively and
transparently with all devolved Administrations and devolved
regulators on the provisions of the Bill and on wider regulated
professions policy.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Does the shadow Minister want to come in straightaway or shall I
go to somebody else?
(Sefton Central) (Lab)
Go to somebody else.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I call .
(Ceredigion) (PC)
I do not intend to detain the House for long, but it is a
pleasure to rise to speak in support of Plaid Cymru’s new clause
5, which would require the Secretary of State or the Lord
Chancellor to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments when
acting in areas of devolved competence. Although I will not be
seeking to divide the House on that, I hope that the new clause,
alongside the repeated interventions of the devolved nations,
will encourage the Government to reconsider their approach.
In its current form, the Bill represents an example of the
Government legislating in devolved matters without having first
secured the consent of Wales’s Parliament or, indeed, consent
from any of the devolved nations. It betrays a blatant disregard
for the constitutional framework of the UK, and further obscures
the regulatory regime for workers, businesses and professional
qualification providers.
Hon. Members should not mistake these concerns as mere trivial
matters; they speak to the growing chasm of distrust between the
Governments of the British Isles. Indeed, just last week, the
Welsh Labour Education Minister accused the UK Government of
acting in a manner that breaches the Sewel convention. Let us
consider, for a moment, the implications of that statement: a
Government Minister from one nation is accusing the Government of
another of tearing up the constitutional convention that has been
so instrumental in ensuring good governance and positive
intergovernmental collaboration across our isles. That is what
this Government and this Prime Minister are doing to the UK and
that is why this Bill needs to be amended to respect the
devolution settlement.
As I said, I will not be pushing our new clause to a vote
tonight, but we will be supporting amendment 3 if it is put to a
Division. I hope that Opposition Members as well as Government
Members will acknowledge the seriousness of these constitutional
concerns and accept the amendment as a first step towards
government by consent, rather than imposition.
(Richmond Park) (LD)
I rise to speak to amendment 3, which stands in the name of my
hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (). I am sorry to say that
she is ill with covid, so I am here in her place.
The Bill allows UK Government Ministers to legislate on areas
that would normally be under the authority of devolved
Administrations. As it stands, there is no protection in place to
allow the Scottish or Welsh Governments to revoke or amend these
measures if needed. The entire reason we have devolved powers is
to allow Ministers to make bespoke decisions that better reflect
the needs of the local people and local economies.
The Minister’s statement that the purpose of the Bill is to
ensure qualified professionals within the UK can work anywhere
within the four nations clearly undermines the devolution
settlement. We saw that with the United Kingdom Internal Market
Act 2020 and we see it again here. Without the appropriate
safeguards, the Bill further erodes both the powers we have in
place in Scotland and in Wales, and the trust between our
Governments. On many issues, the UK has subsumed EU law into UK
law with a view to gradual divergence over time. We are concerned
that this Bill takes a clean slate approach and may put the UK at
a disadvantage when trying to fill vacancies at a time of acute
shortages in some sectors. The Bill provides inadequate detail
regarding its full intentions and scope, leaving provision open
to interpretation. The Government must commit to ensuring the
highest standards of professional qualifications are maintained
and are not bartered away as part of any trade agreement.
Clause 7 would mandate the Secretary of State to set up an
assistance centre for people looking to enter a qualified
profession in the UK or people with UK qualifications looking to
practise overseas. Regulators would be required to provide
information to the assistance centre to allow it to carry out its
functions. We welcome the provisions relating to a centre to
provide advice on and assistance with entry requirements for
those seeking to practise a profession in the UK, or those with
UK qualifications seeking to practise overseas. The obligation to
make arrangements for the assistance centre lies with the
Secretary of State. Amendment 3, which we will be pressing to a
vote, would require the Secretary of State to ensure that there
are representatives for each of the devolved nations on the
centre’s board.
The Law Society of Scotland has urged the Government to seek the
consent of the devolved Administrations when setting up the
assistance centre. We therefore think it imperative—this reflects
the acknowledgement of the role of the devolved Administrations
in earlier clauses in the Bill—for them to be consulted on the
arrangements for its creation, and to be represented on its
board.
(Midlothian) (SNP)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker—rather more swiftly
than I expected.
It seems as though, week in week out, Members on this side of the
Chamber in particular are shouting into the wind. Whatever
legislation is put before us, we suggest amendments in good
faith, only to have to rinse and repeat our previous arguments
when the legislation returns to us with none of our proposed
changes taken into account. We are therefore used to this
Government doing hee-haw, but in this case they have actually
made the Bill worse than it was before, disrespecting the
devolved Governments and undermining the constitution over
something that should not have been controversial.
The Scottish National party fully welcomes the principles behind
the Bill, which will facilitate cross-border recognition and
regulation of professional qualifications. Building an integrated
system of transfer of professionals from abroad is particularly
significant to smaller countries such as Scotland which seek to
attract the skills and expertise of their neighbours. For
example, the world-leading Scottish food and drink industry, and
indeed that of the whole UK, has traditionally relied heavily on
the services of vets qualified in the EU. Those vets were then
able to bring their skills to Scotland under the terms of the
EU’s rules on mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
We are all for the idea of recognising consistency in
qualifications; it is not controversial. However, the Government
have managed to make it controversial: in fact, they have managed
to create a constitutional stooshie out of thin air.
When I last spoke on the Bill, I raised concerns about its impact
on devolution. The whole Bill obviously applies to Scotland,
although certain professions and qualifications are reserved to
this place.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Member is right to say that it is correct for
professional qualifications to be transferable across the United
Kingdom, but in the past the Scottish Government would have had
no say in any of this because it all fell under the European
Union. There was no concern about devolution rights in that case.
Why the sudden concern about devolution rights now that it rests
with this Parliament?
The right hon. Member tempts me, but, as I was about to explain,
we have a number of qualification areas in which these are
devolved matters and not reserved to this place. Under the United
Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the UK Government are now
overruling devolved competences that were formerly in place.
The Bill does not make separate provision for devolved and
reserved professions, so it applies to all regulated professions
active in Scotland, whether reserved or devolved. It follows from
this that, for those aspects of the Bill that affect the devolved
nations’ areas of competence, special provisions should have been
made to require devolved consent, which was touched on by my hon.
Friend the Member for Ceredigion (). It was the case then and it is
still the case now.
Clause 16 ensures that any power conferred on the appropriate
national authority in devolved areas can be exercised by UK
Ministers. There is no requirement for UK Ministers to seek the
Scottish Government’s consent when exercising such powers. A
Secretary of State making regulations under those powers would
therefore be subject to procedure in this place rather than the
Scottish Parliament, or any of the devolved Parliaments. Here we
have a Bill that alters the executive competence of Scottish
Ministers by enabling the Secretary of State to act in devolved
areas without having consent to do so. That is entirely
unnecessary, and undermines the good faith agreement between the
Scottish and UK Governments on the principles of the Bill.
I listened to the Minister, and I welcome the fact that so much
engagement took place, but it is clear that, despite all that
engagement, there was still a lack of any willingness to shift in
any way to take account of the positions of the devolved
Governments. That is why I suggested that the Government take up
the Scottish Government’s proposal to introduce an amendment to
clause 16 to require devolved consent before UK Ministers dabbled
in devolved areas. Not only have the Government rejected that
perfectly reasonable proposal; they have fabricated a convenient
reason to do so, arguing that the devolved Governments
“might undermine the implementation of provisions in
international agreements on recognition of professional
qualifications.”
6.45pm
That is utter havers. Scottish Ministers have to comply with
international agreements: it is in the ministerial code. I know
that in this place that does not always mean very much, but it is
a big deal north of the border. On top of that, the Scotland Act
1998 gives UK Ministers powers to ensure that Scottish Ministers
comply with treaty obligations. So the Government’s stance is
essentially that they cannot let the devolved nations govern in
devolved areas because they might do something that they
literally could not do if they tried. It is absolutely
nonsensical, but that is where we are.
We should be finding areas of agreement in this Bill, but instead
the Government are fabricating excuses to legislate without
devolved consent. Under the Sewel convention, this Parliament
will not normally legislate in devolved areas without the consent
of the Scottish Parliament. The key word here is “normally”. What
is abnormal about this Bill that justifies overriding the Sewel
convention?
I am not quite clear about the hon. Member’s logic. If he is
saying that the Scottish Government would feel obliged to abide
by any international agreements, there would not be any leeway
for them to act independently anyway. What point is he trying to
make? What independence is he seeking for the Scottish
Government, or the Northern Ireland Assembly, or the Welsh
Government?
I think the key word in that intervention is “agreements”. The
Scottish Government, or within the European set-up the UK
Government, would agree these frameworks with Europe. In this
situation, the Scottish Government, and the Governments of
Northern Ireland and Wales, have no say in what is imposed by
this Westminster Government.
The truth is that there is nothing exceptional or even
particularly noteworthy about a requirement for UK Ministers to
seek such consent. It has been requested by the relevant
Committees of the Scottish Parliament, confirmed by a vote of the
Parliament as a whole, and raised multiple times in this place.
It is not worth overriding the Sewel convention—something
extremely serious which has happened on only four occasions, all
of them directly related to major EU exit legislation. That makes
one wonder if the Government are content to undermine the Sewel
convention to the point at which it is no longer even a
convention. Seeking consent would constitute little more than
recognising devolved responsibilities and respecting the UK
constitution, so the Government have some serious explaining to
do to the Scottish Parliament if they go ahead with overriding
Sewel yet again.
This farce has brought the Scottish Government to a point at
which they simply could not recommend that the Scottish
Parliament give the Bill its consent, and that should not be
taken lightly. That said, I am heartened that we have a new
clause before us—tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion, albeit
not to be pressed to a Division—that could deal with the issue.
It changes the consultation requirement to a consent requirement,
and removes the procedure by which the Government could ignore
devolved views and simply report to the House on why they did so.
I sincerely hope that the Government will look at the new clause
seriously. This is not political point-scoring; it is about
protecting the constitution as it currently exists. That is
evidenced by the fact that the Law Society of Scotland supports
the argument that I am advancing today. The Government have
assured us time and again that they have no intention of
overriding devolution, so why not put it in writing instead of
relying on a pinkie promise?
The Bill falls into a pattern of power grabs and disdain for
consent, from Brexit to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act,
and little wonder, because it comes from a Government led by a
man who called devolution a disaster. This disdainful attitude to
UK-Scottish relations damages the UK Government’s claims that
they welcome early engagement on the Bill. It also severely
undermines their commitments to recently agreed intergovernmental
arrangements. I hope that the Minister will reflect seriously on
the unnecessary damage that the Bill will do to devolution in its
current form.
(Dundee East) (SNP)
On the point about the damage that the Bill could do, is there
not a point of principle at stake? This Government appear to be
putting administrative utility ahead of devolved democratic
considerations enshrined in various bits of Scotland Act
legislation that should not be overridden lightly, particularly
on matters such as professional qualifications.
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I absolutely
agree. Of all the things to pick an argument over, why create
this situation over something on which we broadly agree and are
actually on the same page? It is not too late. My right hon.
Friend is not pressing his amendment to a vote, but the
Government could still accept new clause 5 so that we could fix
this situation and deal with it. I sincerely hope that the
Minister will prove my concerns wrong.
I will speak to new clauses 3 and 4 tabled in my name, then
briefly come back to the Government amendment and to amendment 3.
During the progress of this Bill through the Lords, it became
clear that it had been thrown together in a completely
unsatisfactory way. The Financial Times described the way in
which the Government introduced it as a
“chaotic handling of a post-Brexit regime for recognising the
qualifications of foreign professionals”.
Remarkably, the Government admitted introducing the Bill to
Parliament without knowing which professions were in scope. We
argued in the Lords that we had to know who and what was in the
scope of the Bill. It stands to reason that the relevant
regulators and professions need to be aware of these changes.
Having initially listed 160 professions and 50 regulators that
would be affected by the legislation, the Government twice
published a revised list, ultimately increasing the numbers to
205 professions and 80 regulators. Due to do the increased number
of regulators in scope, the Government also had to publish an
updated impact assessment, with the total cost to regulators
increasing by almost £2 million. That is hardly the way to
inspire confidence that the legislation will help businesses or
skilled workers.
The Government were criticised from all sides in the Lords,
including by those on their own Benches. said that the legislation
had
“all the hallmarks of being a Bill conceived and executed by
officials with little or no ministerial policy direction or
oversight…we learn that the Bill was drafted with a
far-from-perfect understanding of the territory that it purports
to cover. This is no way to legislate.”—[Official Report, House
of Lords, 22 June 2021; Vol. 813, c. 149.]
How can regulators and regulated professionals know where they
stand when the Ministers responsible for the Bill do not even
know themselves? When I raised this in Committee, the Minister
responded that he had
“reservations about enshrining a list in the Bill.”
This was because of concerns about not knowing which professions
were ultimately covered. He went on to say that the Government
had committed to
“maintaining a list of regulated professions and regulators to
which they consider the Bill applies, and to keep that list
readily accessible and in the public domain.”––[Official Report,
Professional Qualifications Public Bill Committee, 18 January
2022; c. 30.]
It is of course encouraging that the Minister has made such a
commitment to maintaining a list. I am not asking Ministers to
place a list of regulators on the face of the Bill, but for the
certainty that regulators and professionals need to be able to
operate with confidence, it is important that they now know
whether they are within the scope or not, and that means
maintaining the list that Ministers have agreed to keep in the
public domain. Web pages can be deleted, links can be lost, and
without an amendment requiring the maintenance of a list, there
will be no legal duty on Ministers to do so. Indeed, if they
decided on the day following the granting of Royal Assent to this
Bill that they no longer wanted to publish the list on the gov.uk
website, they could remove it. This amendment, which I will not
be pressing to a vote, is a reminder that the Secretary of State
and the Minister need to maintain the list in the public domain,
as promised, for the benefit of the professions and professionals
who need certainty. This should not be a controversial point, and
I hope the Minister will confirm that that is indeed what will
happen.
Turning to new clause 4, the Bill provides a framework to allow
mutual recognition of professional qualifications between
regulators and professional bodies in the UK and the equivalent
organisations overseas. The provisions in clauses 3 and 4 will
allow for the implementation of regulator-to-regulator mutual
recognition agreements and of the recognition arrangements in new
international trade agreements. As the Law Society tells us, the
Bill will enable the mutual recognition agreement provisions in
the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement to be implemented.
However, the Law Society also says that the provisions for mutual
recognition agreements in the TCA are largely based on the
EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement—CETA—but
that in fact no mutual recognition agreements have been signed
between the EU and Canada using the provisions in CETA in the
three years since CETA came into force. The failure to use the
provisions on which the Government are relying raises the concern
that the provisions are not sufficient. To remind ourselves, this
legislation, if applied effectively, might well help to address
shortages in a multitude of professions, including the chronic
shortage of nurses and vets.
In Committee, I asked the Minister how his Department would put
in place the additional support, co-ordination and guidance
needed to make the most of the provisions in the trade and
co-operation agreement, especially if they are to form the
benchmark for future free trade agreements. There is real concern
that the model on which the provisions in the legislation are
based will not deliver results. That is why I tabled new clause
4, which would oblige the Secretary of State to provide guidance
to regulators on how to make the most of the provisions in the
TCA.
The Minister has written to me since the Committee stage to say
that BEIS has engaged with 20 regulators of professional bodies.
It will be important to see that such engagement leads to the
delivery of mutual recognition agreements using the template on
which the Government are relying. The Minister referred in
Committee to a limited pilot recognition arrangement programme. I
would be grateful if he could explain how effective that pilot
has been so far, and how he foresees its leading to the
successful implementation of new regulations.
I shall turn now to what the Minister said about new clause 1. In
Committee we tabled two amendments to address the concerns raised
by the devolved Administrations. We asked for consistency from
the Government in the way they approach this Bill. The
consistency we asked for in one of the amendments involved a
similar amendment to that included in the United Kingdom Internal
Market Act 2020. I see from new clause 1, having read it a number
of times, that it is consistent with what is in the internal
market Act and I thank the Minister for listening to the concerns
that we raised, even though the Government voted against our
amendments in Committee.
The Minister has addressed the concerns about those matters on
which the devolved Administrations can make recommendations. That
is an improvement on the more “flexible” approach to consultation
that he talked about in Committee. That informal approach would
have left no formal consultation mechanism. We have heard
reservations expressed by a number of hon. Members on that, and I
trust that the Government will still seek consent, in the spirit
of new clause 1, when applying the regulations that are relevant
to the devolved Administrations.
Briefly, I can tell the hon. Member for Richmond Park () that we will be supporting
amendment 3. Representation of the devolved Administrations on
the board is an important principle, and something that we return
to again and again in legislation. We believe that, in the
interests of the devolution settlement, that is entirely
appropriate.
I thank the hon. Members who have taken part in this important
debate. I will whip through each amendment in turn, starting with
new clause 2.
I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife () for tabling new clause
2, and I wish her well as she recovers from covid. I thank the
hon. Member for Richmond Park () for speaking to the
amendment. I remind the House that clause 16 sets out the
definition of an appropriate national authority for the purposes
of the Bill. It also sets out the concurrent powers for making
regulations in areas of devolved competence.
These powers could be used by the Secretary of State or the Lord
Chancellor if, for example, a profession falls within devolved
competence but is regulated at UK level. I understand the
strength of feeling about the concurrent powers in the Bill, but
I have been clear that any regulation made by the UK Government
that falls within devolved legislative competence will be limited
in scope and will always be made in consultation with appropriate
Ministers from the devolved Administrations. The Government
listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses,
undertook extensive engagement with the devolved Administrations
and negotiated in good faith in relation to those concerns. I am
grateful for the devolved Administrations’ constructive and
well-spirited engagement.
7.00pm
Rather than causing a stooshie, as the hon. Member for Midlothian
() said, the Sewel convention
envisages situations in which the UK Parliament might need to
legislate without consent, and those situations are clearly
exceptional. We will always seek legislative consent from the
devolved legislatures when introducing Bills at Westminster that
legislate within areas of devolved competence.
The constructive approach we have shown is underlined by the
Government’s amendments, which offer an enhanced statutory
consultation duty for all devolved Administrations and, for Wales
only, an amendment to carve out the Bill from the requirements of
schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Taken together, this package ensures that the Bill can operate
effectively in all parts of the UK and that those professions
that fall within devolved competence but are regulated on a
UK-wide basis can be dealt with appropriately and efficiently by
the relevant national authority.
The related amendment 4 would remove clause 16, which could limit
the Secretary of State’s ability to use concurrent powers to deal
effectively and efficiently with those professions. I emphasise
that it is crucial that the Bill can operate effectively across
the United Kingdom, which can be best delivered through the
Government amendments.
I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central () for tabling new clause 3,
which at its heart is about the need for clarity on who meets the
definition set out in the Bill. I appreciate that, and I assure
him the Government have worked extensively to provide that
clarity. Last year, BEIS officials carried out a comprehensive
exercise across Government, and with the devolved Administrations
and regulators, to determine to whom the Bill applies. A list of
regulators and professions affected by the Bill was published on
gov.uk on 14 October 2021. That list, which is in the public
domain, will be maintained and updated as necessary, so we have
already met the commitment to publish a list of regulated
professions and the associated regulators. A new legislative
requirement is therefore not required. As I outlined in
Committee, the Government have committed to keeping the list up
to date and readily available in the public domain.
On new clause 4, since the end of the transition period EU member
states are no longer obligated to offer routes to recognition for
UK-qualified professionals. Professionals with UK qualifications
are now subject to the relevant rules in individual EU member
states. Article 158 of the TCA provides a framework for the UK
and the EU to agree arrangements to facilitate the recognition of
professional qualifications. Under that framework, UK and EU
regulators and professional bodies can provide joint
recommendations for potential recognition agreements to be
developed and adopted under annex 24 of the TCA, which contains
guidelines that will help to do this. We have had discussions
with the European Commission to agree a detailed process for
delivering recognition agreements through that framework.
Last year, BEIS established a dedicated recognition agreements
team to provide guidance and support to regulators and
professional bodies seeking to agree such arrangements. That
includes arrangements agreed using the TCA process and those
outside the TCA process. We have provided limited, targeted
financial support to regulators seeking to achieve recognition
agreements. The team has already provided guidance and support to
regulators and professional bodies, both proactively and at their
request, and it has published technical guidance on gov.uk on how
regulators and professional bodies may seek recognition
agreements, including through the TCA framework, and it will
update the guidance to reflect the detailed process for the
framework agreed with the Commission. I hope the hon. Member for
Sefton Central is assured that we share the priority highlighted
by new clause 4.
Although the hon. Member for Ceredigion () is not pressing new clause 5, I
will answer his points. New clause 5 would require the Government
to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations when making
regulations under the Bill that are in devolved legislative
competence. As I said, the most likely use of concurrent powers
would be to implement international agreements on professional
qualifications, including relevant parts of trade deals that are
negotiated on a UK-wide basis. This amendment could limit the UK
Government’s ability to implement provisions promptly and
consistently on the recognition of professional qualifications in
international agreements, which could jeopardise the Government’s
credibility in seeking to secure ambitious agreements with global
partners to support UK service exports.
I know there is no intention to diverge but, none the less, it is
important that we keep to our international obligations in our
timing and approach. We do not want to fall foul of those
obligations inadvertently. Our approach is proportionate in
addressing the devolved Administrations’ concerns and
demonstrates the Government’s commitment to consultation and
transparency.
Finally, on amendments 2 and 3, the assistance centre must work
for the whole UK. The current service, the UK Centre for
Professional Qualifications, has been successfully provided by a
third-party supplier and offers support on a UK-wide basis. The
devolved Administrations have never raised concerns about the
service. The existing contract for the centre comes to an end in
2022, and we will work closely with our counterparts in the
devolved Administrations as we consider provisions for a future
service.
It is important to recognise that the service may continue to be
provided by a third party, but legislating for the structure and
make-up of the board of any future service would represent a
degree of overreach. I do not believe there is a need to have
such requirements in legislation. In fact, a statutory
requirement could add unnecessary delays to the process of making
provision for a future assistance centre, including any potential
commercial process to tender for a future service at the expiry
of the current contract. I hope the hon. Member for Richmond Park
will accept my assurances on the Government’s intentions and
approach and will not press the amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the
Bill.
Clause 7
Assistance Centre
Amendment proposed: 3, page 5, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1A) Before making the arrangements, the Secretary of State must
ensure there are representatives from each of the devolved
nations on the board of the assistance centre.”—(.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure
there are representatives for each of the devolved nations on the
board of the Assistance Centre.
[Division 211
The House divided:
Ayes
210
Noes
296
Question accordingly negatived.
Held on 14 March 2022 at
7.07pm](/Commons/2022-03-14/division/2647C2BC-30F6-40B8-9C2B-B0113B900782/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Clause 16
Authority by whom regulations may be made
Amendment made: 1, page 12, line 7, at end insert—
“(7) In Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (general
restrictions on legislative competence of Senedd Cymru) in
paragraph 11(6)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to
Ministers of the Crown)—
(a) omit the ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (vi), and
(b) after paragraph (vii) insert ‘; or
(viii) the Professional Qualifications Act 2022’.”—(.)
This amendment means that the Secretary of State’s consent is not
needed for Senedd Cymru to be able to remove the powers that the
Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor have under the Bill to
make regulations that are within the legislative competence of
the Senedd.
Third Reading
7.21pm
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill is an important piece of legislation that will change
our approach to recognising professional qualifications in a way
that works best for UK professions and supports our status as an
independent trading nation.
It is disappointing that, despite the UK Government’s best
efforts, the devolved Administrations have not felt able to
recommend the granting of legislative consent to their respective
legislatures. However, the UK Government remain committed to the
devolution settlements, and I trust that the amendment made to
require the Government to consult the devolved Administrations
before they regulate in areas of devolved legislative competence
underlines that commitment. The Government will continue to work
closely with the devolved Administrations on this and future
legislation.
It gives me great pleasure to thank everybody who has supported
the Bill’s progress. I recognise the good work of Members from
all parts of the House, as well as in the other place, who have
engaged closely with the Bill, and the constructive way in which
the Opposition have engaged with the Bill. I pay tribute to my
private office, my officials and, in particular, the Bill team
for their work over the past few months—I thank Matt Leech, Jamie
Wasley, Jen Pattison, James Banfield, Monique Sidhu, Haddeka Taj,
Jack Palmer, Nick French, Raegan Hiles, Tom Corker, Alpa Palmar,
Hannah Marshall, Ben Clifford, Funmi Olasoju, Aneesa Ahmed and
Tim Courtney.
I recognise the commendable work of parliamentary counsel, the
House authorities, parliamentary staff, Clerks and Doorkeepers. I
thank the members of the Public Bill Committee, under the
excellent chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for The
Wrekin (), for their swift but in no
way less thorough scrutiny of the Bill, which I commend to the
House.
7.23pm
The Bill is much improved following its passage through the Lords
and the scrutiny carried out in this House, not least by the
addition of new clause 1, which was tabled by the Secretary of
State on Report and addressed at least some of the concerns
expressed about the devolution settlement.
It is vital that there is a robust regime so that our
professionals can operate effectively here and overseas and we
can to address shortages in many of the occupations covered by
the legislation, including those of nurses and vets, as we have
discussed many times throughout the Bill’s passage. I plead with
the Government to give the guidance to the regulators, the
professional bodies and the professionals, so that the system
that the Bill sets up is effective in creating mutual recognition
agreements that will make a difference to the professions, with
the resultant impact on the economy. The legislation will affect
205 professions and 80 regulators. It is vital that there is
certainty as to who is included and that the list of who is
covered is up to date, to the benefit of professionals and the
economy.
I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the role of
all those involved in getting the Bill through both Houses. My
thanks go to the Clerks and my office for their help in the
construction and tabling of amendments and support in respect of
my speaking notes. With that, I thank all who have taken part in
our debates.
7.25pm
I will be brief. The comments that I made earlier still stand. We
have not seen any movement at all to recognise the genuine
concerns of the devolved Parliaments of these nations, without
which we cannot support the Bill as it stands. Pinky promises and
“We might not do this” or “We wouldn’t intend that to happen”
simply are not enough. That completely undermines the devolution
we have, and on that basis we will oppose the Bill.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
[Division 212
The House divided:
Ayes
295
Noes
39
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 14 March 2022 at
7.26pm](/Commons/2022-03-14/division/9E4DE54D-F66A-47F8-9124-3EB20090F527/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
|
