Grand Committee
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Trade Bill
Thursday 1st October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 128-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (1 Oct 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe their desk, chair and any surfaces they touch. If the capacity of the committee room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee.
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips’ Office, along with lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group, I will invite Members, including Members in the Committee room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding, and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to move formally an amendment already debated should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be sought to withdraw amendments. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee.
We will now begin. On the first group, it might help noble Lords to note that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, has withdrawn, so the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans will follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I see the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, down twice on the list. He may be preparing to make two speeches, but I hope he forgives me if I call him just once, at the end, before the Minister.
Clause 2: Implementation of international trade agreements
Amendment 12
Lord Grantchester
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with and are consistent with the United Kingdom’s environmental obligations in international law and as established by but not limited to—(a) the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; (b) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); and(c) the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that regulations made under the Bill can only be made if the trade agreement which the regulations would implement does not contravene the UK’s environmental obligations.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 12 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Duncan and Lord Oates, for adding their names to this amendment. That it has drawn such widespread support underlines the importance of making climate change, biodiversity and environmental protection central to the United Kingdom’s trade policy—a feature that goes totally unmentioned in the Trade Bill.
I am sure many colleagues across your Lordships’ House believe that achieving the UK’s environmental goals, including net zero by 2050, requires action across all government departments and areas of policy. Trade must be included in that. Trade agreements, including existing EU agreements, typically include national treatment of trade in oil and gas, thereby locking in dependency on fossil fuels, with high greenhouse gas emissions, while incentivising increased fossil fuel infrastructure and even fracking, which would need to be reduced in any continuity agreements.
The risks to the environment from poor trade policies are considerable. Trade agreements could promote the import of cheap higher-carbon goods, effectively off- shoring the UK’s emissions. For example, the EU’s own impact assessment of TTIP, the EU-US trade deal, predicts that it would generate an additional 11 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. This would be fundamentally at odds with our international climate obligations. We must require our trade policies to be up to date and consistent with our environmental obligations.
There was consensus on Tuesday that modern trade agreements go far wider and deeper in their consequences on domestic policy. New and existing trading relationships also present opportunities for the United Kingdom to promote ambitious biodiversity and environmental standards abroad and strengthen the UK’s economic competitiveness through exports of low-carbon goods and services. This new opportunity represents a market for low-carbon goods, estimated by the Committee on Climate Change to be worth more than £1 trillion a year by 2030.
Amendment 12 simply states that regulations to implement trade agreements cannot be made unless agreements are consistent with and in consideration of the UK’s international obligations. The amendment names three main international protocols specifically—the Paris climate agreement, CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity—but is important to recognise that it is not limited to these alone. Indeed, many of the amendments grouped with this one go further and name additional international agreements, notably Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and other noble Lords including my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton.
I will also speak to Amendment 14 in this group, in the names of my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. This restricts the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations to those that have been rolled over, as originally agreed or substantially similar to trade agreements previously agreed by the UK while a member state of the EU. The powers given to the Secretary of State under Clause 2(6) are drawn far too wide and all-encompassing, enabling the Secretary of State to modify any retained EU legislation or primary legislation, as well as to confer discretion to make subordinate legislation, delegate functions and impose penalties. This allows the Government to undermine existing standards across important areas such as food, animal welfare, production methods and environmental protections.
Amendment 22, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, specifically removes from Clause 2(6)(a) its tendency to Henry VIII powers. I am grateful to Greener UK and others for their public support for this amendment, and I welcome the many other similar amendments in the group, underlining how important it is that trade agreements are consistent with the UK’s obligations and endorsed by Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has achieved a precedent for such an amendment by securing climate change protections in the Pension Schemes Bill. This is an opportunity to replicate that provision in this Bill. It stresses that the UK does not want trade agreements that drive a race to the bottom in standards and environmental protections, especially when they contribute to an unacceptable and damaging global footprint. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, I have added my name to Amendment 12 in this group, and will speak to others, notably Amendments 40 and 73. As the noble Lord also said, this group deals with the critical role that trade can play in tackling climate and nature emergencies.
The Bill gives us the opportunity to shape the UK’s future trade policy for the first time in over 40 years, and represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the UK to show global leadership on climate action in advance of our presidency of COP 26 next year. It allows us the chance to ensure that the UK’s trade policy aligns with existing environmental obligations and the UK’s climate goal of achieving net zero by 2050.
At Second Reading, I raised my concerns that the Bill is currently silent on climate change and highlighted the benefits which can come from ensuring that all our legislation is consistent with climate goals. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, we achieved this with the climate change provisions inserted in the Pension Schemes Bill during its passage through this House. I welcome the Minister’s positive response at Second Reading, when he said that continuity agreements will be consistent with international environmental obligations and Amendment 12 makes this explicit in the Bill. Amendments 40 and 73 go further, to ensure that future trade agreements and trade negotiations also align with our climate ambitions.
On Amendment 40, I particularly support the introduction of sustainability impact assessments. Only with such assessments will Parliament be able to sufficiently scrutinise trade deals against our current obligations made under the Paris Agreement and the Climate Change Act, in the very limited 21-day period that the CRaG Act allows for. Sustainability impact assessments will help to incentivise trade deals which promote low-carbon imports, services and technologies, rather than those that increase global emissions, impacting the health of our planet and our citizens.
The benefits of a long-term future trade policy which can help to meet our climate and environmental goals are enormous and can strengthen the UK’s economic competitiveness through supporting exports of low-carbon goods and services. As has been said, the business opportunities of moving to a low-carbon economy were estimated by the Committee on Climate Change as being worth £1 trillion a year by 2030. UK low-carbon services are estimated to have a growth potential of 12% to 15% a year up to 2030. It makes sense from an economic, social and environmental perspective.
This is being more widely recognised. Business groups such as the Aldersgate Group, an alliance of major businesses, academic institutions, and professional and civil society organisations driving action for a sustainable and competitive economy, support amendments that aim to better align the UK’s trade policy with its environmental and climate goals, and enable sufficient parliamentary scrutiny in doing so. It believes that, without careful reference to climate change and the environment in the Bill, the terms of future free trade agreements could make it harder for the UK to achieve its domestic targets and could undermine the momentum behind its clean growth agenda.
Importantly, any explicit or implicit restrictions on the UK’s ability to implement new climate and environmental standards could create an uneven playing field for British businesses forced to compete with imports abiding by lower climate and environmental standards. The development and ratification of trade deals must also be subject to timely and close parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny. These amendments would ensure much needed consistency between the UK’s trade policy, its international position on climate change and the environment, and its domestic policy and industrial strategy goals, to which the Minister made reference this morning.
We are at a critical turning point; the next 10 years are crucial, and we have a real opportunity for global action on climate change. It is vital that future trade policy helps, not hinders, the delivery of the UK’s climate and environmental goals. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I understand that it has not been possible to reach the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, who was due to participate remotely, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Subject to what my noble friend the Minister might say in his reply, it appears that the powers set out here go far wider than necessary to obtain the objective of the Bill in negotiating trade agreements.
I will focus my remarks on Amendment 69 in my name and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for her support. It reflects the commitment set out in our manifesto to maintain our high standards. I am mindful of the fact that the World Trade Organization would permit us, not just to maintain our own high standards, but to ensure that we can aim to protect the environment in trade-related measures, subject to certain specified conditions. This is, therefore, a probing amendment to ask my noble friend whether, in the course of international trade negotiations, particularly new ones with the US and other countries with which we hope to negotiate free trade agreements, the Government intend to push the boundaries of standards by going one step further and asking these countries to meet out high standards. The idea is not just to ensure that we are meeting our current high standards but to insist that other countries do as well.
The amendment sets out a framework for achieving that through each House of Parliament approving a Motion. The benchmark would be the minimum standards for environmental protections, food safety and animal welfare for the goods imported through the relevant trade agreements. I hope that my noble friend will be minded to support this. I entirely support what the Government say about continuing to uphold our high standards and I support the general thrust of this group of amendments, as set out in Amendment 12 and Amendment 73 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I hope that, through Amendment 69, climate change and environmental standards will form a close part of international trade agreements. We should not wait for the next COP. We should use the opportunity of each free trade agreement we are negotiating to push the boundaries of environmental protection.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She always speaks a lot of sense and I thoroughly agree with her. I am delighted to support Amendment 40 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Oates, Lord Duncan of Springbank and Lord Browne of Ladyton. I also add my support to Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester.
As other noble Lords have said, we are at a crossroads for the environment, climate change and biodiversity. Last week, I listened to Christiana Figueres spelling out the real and present danger that we are in. She says that we have just 10 years to cut our emissions by 50% if we are to get to the net zero target by 2050. This is not a dress rehearsal; it is real life. Amendments that bind into law trade standards that protect our planet, curb emissions, encourage biodiversity and, at the same time, promote human health are quite simple on one level. They are also totally necessary. If the Government want us to believe that they are serious about what they say is their desire to meet the Paris targets, why on earth are these amendments not at the heart of the Bill, rather than being peripheral or just according to what someone says?
Trade is one of the most powerful levers that we have in the world. Business is already ahead of the Government. For instance, Coller Capital has been running a risk register for several years now and will not invest in countries or companies that depend on businesses which damage the environment or products which, in some way or another, will cause or be affected by climate change. In her excellent speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that the Aldersgate Group has set ambitious targets. It knows that if we are to be competitive in future, we have to raise our game. The CBI has also recommended that the UK’s export strategy must be augmented by a green trade focus ahead of COP 26. It even suggests that we should introduce accelerated tariff reductions in the FTAs for multilateral agreement partner countries which meet, or, indeed surpass, their Paris Agreement targets. The Government’s own proposal for its net zero review says that business is calling out for a “clear roadmap”.
We could also start to lower tariffs on low-carbon goods and services like New Zealand does. Its Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability—which was signed into law by New Zealand, Costa Rica, Fiji, Iceland and Norway—aims to remove tariffs on goods and services that protect the planet, eliminate harmful fossil fuel subsidies and develop clear eco-labelling. It says:
“Globally, countries are subsidising fossil fuel production… to the tune of over $500 billion US dollars a year.”
I ask the Minister whether he knows why and what we are doing about that. I also ask the Government whether we are considering seeking membership of that particular agreement or, indeed, trying to do something similar ourselves.
SIAs are not complicated; there is a growing demand for forest and agricultural commodities that drives greenhouse gas emissions and has negative effects on biodiversity overseas, and our current legislation does not require this to be monitored. Does not the Minister agree that this is an absurd situation? We cannot export our emissions overseas any more than we can export cruelty by allowing the import of animal products that have been reared in conditions that we would not agree with. At the moment, we do not know what damage we are doing to nature and the environment through trade because, as the WWF said in a recent report, we are importing from nations that are high risk. If we are in the dark, how is the consumer going to know what they are buying?
Finally, I think noble Lords would be surprised if I did not turn to the question of public health. What is the UK to do if we do not include amendments such as this? We are about to enter uncharted territory; we are leaving a very big bloc and rapidly trying to secure new trade deals with every other country. Of course there will be changes; there might be some opportunities in terms of good standards; but there are also risks.
Since the dawn of time, we have known that what we eat is the backbone of our health, and here are just three ways—there are many more—in which free trade deals without standards could increase ill health and obesity. For instance, I cite the increase in the availability of products that are high in fats, sugars and salts and backed by huge advertising spends. The other day, I spoke about Tim Tams. I said that they were American; they are in fact an Australian version of our Penguins. Some 91% of households in Britain already buy Penguins, but Tim Tams are going to be cheaper and heavily marketed and, sadly, the Prime Minister himself was spotted waving a packet around when he recently made the case for a free trade deal with Australia. We do not need more chocolate bars.
Secondly, if our farmers and producers are undercut by cheaper imports from overseas because overseas farmers have lower standards, our farming will erode over time. We will import more and more and it will become more processed, because that is what happens when food has to travel over long distances and last for a long time.
Finally, as we all know, the USA is very aggressive in its trade negotiations, demanding that there be no labelling or HFSS advertising restrictions. If we give in there, then, quite honestly, all the progress we have made around public health and, indeed, our environmental efforts will be for naught. The good thing is that if we protect the environment, we also protect the health of all of us. I urge noble Lords to support these amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. Perhaps we will be able to come back to him. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it might come as no surprise that I agree with every word that has been said so far, and I support the general thrust of all the amendments in this group. I have tabled Amendment 73 and the linked Amendment 74, which comes up in a later group; ideally, I will combine these two on Report.
I hope the Minister will forgive me if I remind him of what the Government have been saying. The Conservative Party 2019 manifesto made a commitment that:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
We have heard that many times during debates on the Agriculture Bill, and I hope that is absolutely true. In relation to the pandemic, the Government have also said that they plan to deliver a UK and world economy which is stronger, cleaner, more sustainable and more resilient after this crisis. In their 25-year environment plan, the Government pledged to embed
“environmental sustainability… at the very heart of global production and trade”.
They are committed to developing a “trading framework that supports” environmental goals. That is all fantastic and I very much hope that the Government are going to live up to those commitments and promises.
My Amendment 73 is needed because risk to the environment from poor trade policies are considerable—as other Peers have already said. Free trade agreements can promote the import of cheaper and higher-carbon goods, effectively offshoring the UK’s emissions and undermining its international environmental obligations. However, the UK could and should develop a fresh approach consistent with the action needed to respond to the environmental crisis, promoting high standards and dramatically reducing the UK’s environmental impact both domestically and overseas.
The Government are very quick to say that they are achieving their carbon emissions targets, but in fact they offshore a huge amount. When we buy things from other countries, it is their carbon burden and not ours, and we are big importers. In order to ensure that trade agreements work with, rather than against, the environment, the Bill must be amended to ensure multilateral environmental agreements that are compatible with the trade deals the UK is negotiating and signing. It must also ensure that trade negotiations are conducted with nations that are fully implementing relevant multilateral environmental agreements, unless under specific conditions. Negotiating partners of the UK must be informed of our climate and environmental goals and ensure that these take precedence over any international trade agreement. I realise that this will be difficult when talking to the United States, but I am afraid that we have to do it.
In 2021, the UK will host COP 26—I hope to see many of you there—the biggest climate talks since the Paris agreement was negotiated and signed in 2015. At that stage, the UK has to show global climate leadership by ensuring that its trade policy is aligned with its environmental ambition and international commitments. These measures will ensure that the UK creates a resilient future-focused economy fit for the needs of the 21st century. This is not just about the environment and being very green; it is about human survival at comfort levels that we would all find acceptable.
Should such an amendment not be passed, the risk will remain that the UK strikes trade deals that would undermine its environmental ambitions. Of course, this is an especially great risk because the Government have still not resolved the conflicting views of various Ministers regarding trade and the environment. My Amendment 73 addresses the oversight of the Bill, which fails to ensure that trade agreements work with, rather than against, environmental policy and commitments. I am trying to be helpful here; I am actually trying to help the Government achieve their promises.
Subsection (3) ensures that trade negotiations are normally conducted only
“with nations that are fully implementing relevant multilateral environmental agreements”.
This would ensure that the United Kingdom is making the closest links and ties with like-minded nations that also wish to show climate leadership on the international stage. Subsection (4) requires UK negotiators to be clear about
“the United Kingdom’s climate and environmental goals”.
The UK and its negotiators must be clear that these “will take precedence” over a trade deal if there is any conflict between them, and I hope that the Minister can reassure me on those points.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, for the information of Members, I will say that I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, has withdrawn. I call the next speaker, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
I plan to speak mainly on Amendment 12, but I also support Amendment 40 and, particularly, Amendment 69 in this group. Leaving the European Union should not mean leaving our international obligations. Recognition of those conventions mentioned under Amendment 12 is, one would imagine, already accounted for in the existing trade agreements due to be transposed into UK law as a result of this Bill. However, without this amendment, these remain an expectation not an assurance.
I am pleased by recent statements from the Prime Minister and the seriousness of this Government in attempting to deal with the climate crisis. Furthermore, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Government or their existing trading partners in intending to abide by our international environmental obligations. Only by omission of any explicit reference to our environmental obligations have doubts been raised.
Lord Lansley (Con)
[Inaudible.]—the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans that the Government are genuinely committed to achieving our environmental and climate change objectives. In so far as I depart from him and others, it is not in relation to that but in relation to the effect of the amendments.
The amendments in this group have a number of different effects. Amendments 12 and 40 essentially bear upon the agreements to be implemented using regulations made under Clause 2, which, as the Bill is presently constructed, are the roll-over agreements that we started with from the European Union. I have no reason to understand—unless somebody tells me otherwise—that any are inconsistent with our environmental obligations, so I do not understand why it is necessary to put amendments in the Bill to tell us that we should not implement them if they are contrary to those obligations since I do not think that is the case. That is step one.
Step two is that a number of these amendments go further. They want to construct what is essentially a structure for mandating the Government to enter into future international trade agreements only in ways consistent with our international obligations on the environment and a series of other specific requirements. We will encounter this argument again and again during scrutiny of the Bill. My view is that while the Bill is an appropriate mechanism for us to improve the process of scrutiny of future trade agreements, it is not right in this legislation to attempt to construct a list of what the Government are intending to achieve in future trade negotiations. It would be a very long list. Having constructed such a long list, the Government would be unable to conduct any of those trade negotiations with any negotiating flexibility whatever. People could just look at the legislation and say, “We know what the British Government can do, and it is not very much”.
Mandating international trade negotiators in advance also means that we would trespass into the territory of removing from Governments the executive power of the prerogative and executive prerogative. We could do it, but if we are going to do it, we should do it in the context of a major piece of legislation which sets up a statutory framework for doing so. We have no such statutory framework, and I do not think we can conceive that it should be added to piecemeal in this way. I therefore cannot agree with most of Amendments 40, 69 and 73.
Amendment 21 appears to have been constructed simply to prevent the Government implementing any trade agreement with the United States. I do not know of any country outwith the criteria other than the United States, it having issued notice of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. If I understand the amendment, it would come into effect on 20 November 2020 at the earliest. Expressing a purely personal view, I hope that will not happen and that it will not be necessary.
I want to mention one or two other small things. I do not understand Amendment 14 at all since it seems to replicate what is already in the Bill. We are intending to implement agreements similar to, or the same as, those we entered into as a member of the European Union. If it is saying something other than that, it would introduce a degree of ambiguity which I do not think is desirable.
Amendment 22 does something completely different. It removes the power to modify retained direct principal European Union legislation. We went over this in some detail the previous time this Bill was before us, two years ago. I still do not understand why this is necessary in so far as the power is already in the Government’s hands under Schedule 8 to the EU withdrawal Act 2018. Perhaps the Minister will explain why it is additionally necessary to legislate in this way now.
Finally, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is not with us, his spirit moves with us none the less. If one looks at Clause 2(6) one will see that line 26 states:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may, among other things, make provision”
and then there is a list. On 20 March 2019, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, asked what “among other things” meant and why that phrase was there. The subsection is there to say that the regulations may make provision in a number of specific respects, but the drafters have given Ministers additional freedom to do what exactly? Since these are roll-over agreements, it seems to me that the words “among other things” are not necessary. At the time, my noble friend Lady Fairhead said that it was an interesting point and she would take it away and think about it. Therefore, if they have thought about it, they have put it back in the Bill having thought about it, or else they did not think about it and have simply reproduced the Bill and it is as pointless now as it was then. Perhaps the Minister will kindly tell us what “among other things” in that line means.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the other noble Lords who have signed his Amendment 12. As the Committee should be aware, the United Kingdom has been a leader in standing up internationally for high environmental standards around the world. As the Minister made clear at Second Reading, all the continuity agreements that we have been and are negotiating are fully compliant with our international obligations, including the Paris Agreement on climate change. It is unnecessary to constrain the Government’s freedom in negotiating trade agreements with countries, including developing countries which may not have adopted the same environmental standards as we have, because that might have unintended consequences. Furthermore, the Paris Agreement targets only carbon reduction, but does not fully address the equally great national security challenge of providing clean energy for the whole planet, particularly in a world that needs more energy, not less.
As for Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I am not quite sure what its purpose is. As I understand it, it would prohibit the application of the powers created in this clause for the purposes of an enhanced continuity trade agreement such as that which we have agreed with Japan. Why would the noble Lord and my noble friend wish unduly to restrict the freedom of our negotiators to take any available opportunity to include enhancements to any continuity agreement?
As for Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, I oppose it for the reason suggested by my noble friend Lord Lansley. It seems to me that it is designed to prevent a trade agreement with the United States, and that would have a negative effect on the economy and deny opportunities to British exporters and food producers.
Amendment 40, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, is similarly unnecessary. In any case, your Lordships have received repeated assurances that none of our continuity agreements will deviate from the high standards that we apply to environmental issues, similar to human rights, as debated in a previous group. The Minister has already reassured the Committee that the Government will continue to publish parliamentary reports with each continuity agreement.
It will not surprise my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering to hear that I do not support her Amendment 69. It is clear that the Food Standards Agency has the powers to permit, or not, the sale of any foods which might be imported under FTAs. The amendment also seeks to require alignment of our agricultural marketing standards with those of the EU, which we have left. I agree with my noble friend that high animal welfare standards are a laudable objective, and we have done relatively well in this country in this area. However, I think she is incorrect to argue that animal welfare is exactly the same as animal health and hygiene. We will be free to set our own regulations after the end of the transition period. I earnestly trust that we will move quickly to adopt standards that are WTO compliant, unlike those of the EU, which in certain respects conflict with the WTO’s SPS agreement.
As my noble friend the Minister said at Second Reading, it is not within the gift of the UK Parliament to legislate on animal welfare standards for overseas countries. The Government have been clear that we have no intention of lowering standards, and we have fulfilled this commitment through our deeds. None of the 20 agreements already signed has reduced standards in any area. As the Minister said at Second Reading, it will be the job of the food standards agencies to ensure that all food imports comply with the UK’s high safety standards and that consumers are protected from unsafe food that does not meet those standards. Decisions on those standards are a matter solely for the UK and are made separately from any trade agreements. I ask the Minister to confirm that that remains the Government’s position.
For similar reasons, I am also opposed to Amendments 73 and 74 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. In any case, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that the Government would obviously not seek to enter into an international trade agreement without any merit with any nation? Neither should we expect only to enter into agreements which share precisely our positions on all multilateral environmental agreements.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, there is surely nothing more important than addressing climate change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others have made clear. It is difficult to see that any trade agreement could possibly be justified if it is in contradiction to what must be an overriding national and international aim. Trade agreements must at the very least be consistent with our climate goals, and certainly must not undermine those commitments. I am sure that the noble Viscount will note the cross-party nature of many of these amendments.
My noble friend Lord Oates is very sorry that he cannot be here today, as he is attending a funeral. Amendment 12 in the name of Lord Grantchester and others, including my noble friend Lord Oates, means that any trade agreement we make must be consistent with our commitments under the Paris climate change agreement, CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity. That is surely a given, and yet we know that this does not mean that such aims are built into trade deals. In Amendment 21, my noble friend Lord Oates and others make the case here stronger still: that trade deals can be made only with those who have signed up to the Paris Agreement, or not served notice that they intend to leave.
If after the debate we heard in the United States this week the American people decide that they wish to have Mr Trump as President for the next four years, then no trade deal could be undertaken with the United States, which will have pulled out of the Paris Agreement by then, having given the necessary three years’ notice and a fourth year to implement that—the four-year provision that President Obama very sensibly put into the Paris Agreement.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 40. As we deepen and strengthen our global trading relations, we cannot ignore our environmental commitments. I support this amendment because it means that our environmental obligations, as outlined by international law, cannot be undermined by future trade deals.
This must be a green Brexit. The Government’s election manifesto stated that they will not compromise on our high environmental protections in any future trade deals. Without this amendment, these are promises without actions. The international agreements laid out in this amendment are about not just environmental protection but our health and well-being, and are for the benefit of generations to come.
In the interests of time, I will outline only three of these international agreements. First, the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution has helped reduce pollution levels across borders and improve human health. As we have seen during lockdowns, the rapid decline in air pollution has had a positive impact on the health and well-being of people and nature in the UK and internationally. By honouring our commitment to this convention in this amendment, we can continue to protect the health of people and ensure that we do not undermine the improvements made as we recover from the pandemic and restart the economy.
Secondly, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is included in this amendment. It is about not just maritime jurisdiction but managing resources in a sustainable manner. The issue of fish stocks in UK fishing waters has been a prominent debate in Brexit. By continuing our commitment to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, we can ensure that the quality and productiveness of our fish stocks are maintained. It is essential for both our biodiversity and the long-term livelihood of our fishermen.
Thirdly, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a key mechanism for monitoring greenhouse gas contributions and plays an important role in reducing emissions in the fight against the climate crisis. Global trade has an environmental footprint. For instance, 30% of carbon dioxide emissions are from freight transport. As we develop trading relations, we must ensure that we stay on the path to net zero emissions by 2050. This amendment means that we will continue to protect the environment in a way that does not restrict trade. It is an opportunity to make trade more sustainable by supporting investment in greener sectors and turning away from polluting industries to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
This amendment would also ensure that, within 12 months of making regulations or ratifying a trade agreement, a report assessing the impact of regulations on our environmental obligations is presented to Parliament. This is key in ensuring that we are held accountable and have fully considered the implications of any deal. If the UK is to be a leader in sustainability, this amendment must be supported. Without it, we lack a meaningful commitment to tackling the climate crisis.
The Government assure us that they are putting green at the heart of the coronavirus recovery. The Prime Minister has said that he wants the UK to be seen as a leading example in enabling a global green industrial revolution. Supporting this amendment would enable us to be an effective environmental leader, especially as we prepare to host COP 26 next year.
Lord Beith (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has already referred to the Henry VIII powers and questioned why they are repeated in this Bill when, to a large extent, they are available in the withdrawal Act. Amendment 22, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, gives us an opportunity to look at one part of that. It would delete the Henry VIII power contained on page 2, in paragraph (a) in line 27. That is a power to modify
“retained direct principal EU legislation or primary legislation that is retained EU law”.
That sounds rather obscure, but it is an opportunity to change significant standards, using Henry VIII powers to modify substantive primary legislation by means of statutory instruments. We all know what problems these powers present, as they are very topical at the moment. The powers can be exercised by UK Ministers or by Ministers in devolved Administrations, described as “appropriate authorities” in the clause. They put Ministers in the position that they probably have to worry a little less about what Parliament will think or do about what they are negotiating.
The Explanatory Notes say that this provision
“does not allow for regulations to make or extend criminal offences, charge fees, amend primary legislation other than retained EU law, or create new public bodies.”
The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, raised this issue in the context of the previous Trade Bill, and pointed out:
“We are not persuaded by the Government’s position that it is sufficient for the power in clause 2 to be constrained presumptively rather than explicitly. We recommend that the restrictions on the power be included in the text of the Bill.”
That is a perfectly reasonable request by the committee.
There is a context to it, or a context to our consideration of it. We have just been through a series of parliamentary rows and debates about the use of powers under the public health Act of 1984. I say the use—it was the fairly incompetent use of them, because every prosecution that relied on that legislation and orders made under it failed. Convictions were overturned because of confusion about the regulation-making power that the Act provided, and confusion about whether the individuals to which the provisions were applied could reasonably be expected to be infected or simply be put under these provisions for their own benefit, for which the legislation did not provide.
Continuity trade deals post Brexit are not the same as a pandemic, but they are surrounded by issues of urgency and claims of exceptional circumstances. It is in such contexts that powers of delegated legislation get abused or overused. When that happens, we ask why Parliament created such wide powers and why we allowed it in the first place. The answer usually is that it was by ignoring what the Delegated Powers Committee, the Statutory Instruments Committee or the Constitution Committee said at the time and relying on the fact that Governments will always do the right thing, won’t they? Well, Governments will not always do the right thing, sometimes for profoundly objectionable reasons and sometimes because they think that the need to get on with things overrides any of these considerations. There is a case for making the legislation clear on the limits on the use of power to repeal or modify existing primary legislation and that provision ought to be in the Bill. There is still time to put this right at Report.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Beith, in the thrust of his comments, although I agree very much with them. The overuse of Henry VIII powers is certainly a matter that we need to give considerable attention to.
I apologise if the signal is breaking up. I have a download speed of 1.45 and an upload speed of 0.57, which makes the signal unstable. That is obviously a problem when working remotely, as I am doing.
I strongly support the thrust of Amendment 12 and all the rest of the group. There can be no doubt that the EU has rightly placed considerable emphasis on environmental and climate change matters. If—sadly, to my mind—we are moving away from having a significant proportion of our trade with the EU to a position whereby our trade is likely to be much more with third-world countries, valid concerns arise. That is not to say that changes in trade patterns are necessarily a retrograde move; they are not. Clearly, there are opportunities as well, provided that we are not trying to secure imported goods that are cheaper because they have been manufactured or extracted in a manner that ignores the need to safeguard our planet with regard to the impact of manufacturing on global warming or biodiversity.
It is not acceptable, in this day and age, for the UK to duck its international obligations in these matters to get cheap goods or, particularly, cheap raw materials. When one considers the way in which the environment is being despoiled in many countries, particularly in South America, we must flag up these concerns from day one of our new international trading era. We must establish a firm understanding that we shall not trade away our duties to the planet to make a quick buck.
How we in this Committee can flag up our firm commitments in these matters is to write such safeguards as provided by these amendments into the Bill. Indeed, I find it incomprehensible that Members in the other place should not have done that already. In the absence of political will in another place to make such obviously desirable and necessary steps, we, if not in this Committee then certainly at Report, should insist without hesitation that we have such provision in the Bill that we eventually return to another place.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansley has eloquently made one of the points that I was going to make, which is that most of the amendments in this group relate in practice to continuity agreements only, because they relate to regulations made under Clause (2)(1) of the Bill, and Clause 2 relates only to continuity agreements. I accept, however, that noble Lords are trying to frame their arguments in a broader context of any trade agreement. If that is the case, their amendments will not do that—although some of them do—so they are not achieving their desired effect.
It is important to recognise that the Government have been clear in their policy towards the environment and the Paris accord. In rollover agreements that have been agreed to date, there has not been a single issue of concern to those who seek to reinforce those agreements to which we have committed in relation to environmental protections and other matters. As a general principle, we do not clutter up every single bit of legislation with general policy positions unless they are absolutely necessary, which clearly they are not in this case, or you would end up with an impossibly long list of items that you are trying to remind the Government is their policy.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, before I start, I should apologise for any noise that may interfere. There is a demonstration outside and every now and then, the volume increases.
There are a number of amendments in this group on a broad range of environmental protections. I do not intend to speak to all of them, save to say that I support them and hope that, on Report, the movers can work together to amalgamate them satisfactorily. I will, however, single out Amendment 40 which provides for the laying before Parliament of a report assessing the impact of our environmental obligations. That will be very important.
I am going to spend the rest of my time speaking to Amendment 21, to which I have added my name. In 2015, to those of us for whom climate change represents a real and looming existential threat, the Paris Agreement was received with relief. It commits Governments to submit their national plans to cut emissions and ultimately, each party to the agreement will have to do their bit to keep the rising global temperature to well below 2 degrees centigrade and to pursue efforts to limit it further, to 1.5 degrees centigrade. International agreements are initially signed to signal intent to comply but become binding only through ratification, so it is a worry when Governments do not ratify. Seven countries have not yet ratified the agreement: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, South Sudan and Eritrea.
Turkey stands out as the only member of the G20 not to have formally endorsed the deal after Russia ratified it in October 2019. Turkey is a member of the OECD, with high economic ambitions. It has very good renewable resources and therefore the potential to reduce emissions quite significantly; and yet, it still plans massive expansion of coal-fired power stations. Turkey’s emissions increased by 135% between 1990 and 2016. This cannot go on: it really must join the rest of the G20 and signal its intent to move ahead on this agenda.
I turn to the US, which is the second largest emitter after China, accounting for 13% of global emissions. The US is still on the UN list of the original 187 countries to have ratified. However, as my noble friend Lady Northover said, it began the procedure to withdraw from the accord in 2019 and will leave on 4 November this year, I believe. President Trump remains a climate change denier. No one knows what the US elections will bring, but one thing is for sure: a Biden presidency will put the world on a much safer trajectory. Let us hope that it happens, and that it is not too late for action subsequently.
In the meantime, let us make Britain’s values and priorities clear. Action on climate change is not a “nice to have” option: it is an imperative. If, next year, we are to have a successful outcome to our presidency of COP 26 and a successful presidency of the G7, we must refuse to do business with rogue states. That sounds harsh, does it not? But if I were referring to Russia or China, one would not recoil at such a statement. The fact is that we cannot tackle climate change, halt species loss and save our oceans if we have double standards.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, as a member of the new EU International Agreements Sub-Committee, I support any attempts in this debate to improve parliamentary scrutiny, although that is not the subject of this amendment. Our committee has already examined the promising Japan FTA and much of the less promising US FTA, and we are moving on to Australia, New Zealand and, beyond that, to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. The Government have given us plenty to think about. Of course, much hangs on the overarching EU agreement, which we all await impatiently, because it affects the success of all the others.
The Minister has already acknowledged the value of our scrutiny under CRaG and that of the Commons’ IDC. I also believe that she shares my concern that CRaG is amendable and that all these FTAs and treaties should reflect the latest thinking on such issues as human rights and the SDGs, mentioned in the previous amendment.
The Minister said on Tuesday that work is being done on supply chains. It is a learning process, and I appreciate that this Bill is about continuity agreements, which already safeguard such issues. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has reminded us of that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says that we are cluttering up the legislation. However, these issues are relevant because of the multitude of agreements on the horizon. Today’s amendments are about the environment and climate change, which are subjects of massive public concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said on Tuesday that we live in different times and under rules that are mainly a consequence of our long EU membership. High environmental and technical standards are what producers, traders and investors now want and expect.
We have already heard of a range of issues that constitute possible improvements, if not to this Bill then to future agreements. I recognise how difficult it is for a Government to accommodate all the interests represented, especially as they will have to be fitted to different agreements and different countries. Formal consultation with stakeholders and the public, as well as with Parliament through explanatory memorandums, correspondence and debates, is now an accepted part of CRaG procedure, and we must celebrate that.
These amendments, alongside those on international development and the SDGs, catch my attention because they are about the planet we live on. I have spent my working life learning about conditions in other countries, and it is not difficult to agree with the conservationists and the climate changers that much more must be done to adapt the world to a more carbon-free economy. When it comes to trade, the UK has a huge advantage: it is historically a famous trading nation and is one of the foremost countries adapting to climate change and acquiring scientific and technical know-how to help other countries. Non-EU agreements must surely include proper references to international obligations, as set out in these amendments.
Last week, the Commons International Trade Committee discussed the opportunities on the environment coming up in the CPTPP—the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, of which much is expected. These include not only the Paris targets, the rules governing renewable energy, carbon reduction and transport costs, but also tighter collaboration on the handling of emergencies, such as floods and forest fires, and even an environmental tax or tariff. New Zealand’s Prime Minister is a pioneer of sustainable trade. She is also critical in the developed world’s poor response to climate change. Through the CPTPP and the UN, she will no doubt offer good advice, even to Australia, on these issues.
The mutual benefits for global trade and sustainable development in trade agreements are fast coming up the agenda. As we enter a new era of free trade, the Government would do well to pay them more than lip service. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right: it is a matter of human survival.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I first thank my noble friends, Lord Grimstone, the Minister, and Lord Younger of Leckie, together with their officials, for the time they gave me yesterday to discuss my concerns on this and other amendments.
Rather like the Agriculture Bill, we have a slight overlap of amendments. Inevitably, I am afraid that I will have to touch on Amendment 23 from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and Amendment 17, which relates to investor-state dispute settlements. I will major a bit more on those when we come to them, but they are interlinked, because of Amendments 69 and 73.
The earlier amendments, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Oates, refer to the international agreements. This is a continuity Bill, and I have little doubt that this Government—my Government—and indeed a Government in the colours of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester would abide by their international agreements. What concerns me more, however, is the wording picked by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering in Amendment 69, where she talks not of international agreements, but of
“standards established by primary and subordinate legislation in the United Kingdom”
and, in Amendment 73, where the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talks about the
“appropriate authority to take action in pursuit of the UK’s climate and environmental goals”.
I am in total support of the Government in their ambition that climate change and environmental issues should be right at the centre of our trade policy. I hope that, when he sums up, my noble friend will confirm that that is indeed the Government’s position. My noble friend Lord Grimstone told me that yesterday, but it would be nice to have it on the official record.
However, my problem lies in looking at other countries that have tried to impose stricter standards other than international agreements and then get taken to court under ISDSs. I have two examples that I will expand upon. The first is Philip Morris v Australia in 2015. Philip Morris lost that case, and rightly so, but the problem was that it cost Australia 22 million Australian dollars, which seems an unnecessary amount of money for our Government to have to fork out if they are taken to court in a similar case. The other case that I shall mention at this stage is Cargill v Mexico, where Cargill was awarded $77.3 million when it won a case against a tax on high-fructose corn syrup that was introduced to address health concerns.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I regard this group of amendments as vital. I thank my noble friend Lord Grantchester and the others who have put their names to the various amendments and given us the opportunity to express our support.
Already in this debate, various speakers have particularly attracted my attention, but I would like to say how much I appreciated the thoughts of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who seemed to talk about the real nature of the world and our responsibilities within it and how these amendments relate to that. I think he was right.
What do these amendments deal with? First, they deal with food security, which is obviously vital to the British people. Food security covers not only the adequate supply of food but means that the quality of food is such that it sustains the well-being of the population. At a time when we are deeply concerned about the pressures on the health service and the rest, we are preoccupied—or we should be—with the problems of obesity in our society. A healthy diet is vital. Therefore, anything that is done to strengthen commitment in this area is important.
These amendments also deal with vital subjects such as biodiversity. Biodiversity is in major crisis at the moment. It is not just in decline; it is a catastrophic decline which can begin—indeed before very long—to threaten the human species itself. They also similarly deal with endangered species. We know in the same way how far our existence is interlinked with nature and the glorious variety of species in the world. Again, the decline in the number of species is not just a matter to note; it is a matter of profound concern.
We all know about climate change. There is no way that we can stop it, of course, because sometimes we assume in our arrogance that the human race is infinite, but we are not; the planet is not infinite. Eventually, we know that it will disappear back into the sun or whatever, but we can at least prolong the span of life of our own species and, by recognising our interdependence with other species, those as well. We all care deeply about environmental standards. We have spent hours considering the Agriculture Bill which is to have its Third Reading today. It puts the importance of animal welfare to the fore and we spent hours debating that. All of these things are central to the quality of the life we want to live—the very continuation of the life we want to live and which our children and their successors will able to live. These amendments meet that.
We have heard it asked today: why are we worried about these issues? The Government have given us assurances. I hope I will be forgiven, but I think that there is a certain amount of scepticism in society at large, not least among people like myself, about what the assurances really amount to in terms of effective commitment. That is why it is so important to put these things into the Bill. If Ministers say, “We have already committed ourselves, so why do we need this?”, why not put it into the Bill? The Ministers who have given these undertakings will not be there forever and we do not know what their successors will want to do or the attitude they will have. That is why, again, it is important to take every opportunity to ensure that the commitment is set out in the Bill and thus cannot be easily avoided. I thank those noble Lords who have put forward these amendments and I am glad to support them.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. He is not available at the moment. We will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a sobering fact that, as we discuss this important group of amendments with regard to the UK adhering to international obligations, the European Union has today issued a letter of formal notice on a potential infraction where we have breached an international agreement. That is the backcloth against which we must consider all the groups of amendments to come: how we as a country want to be seen around the world as a nation that adheres to its national obligations. Those on climate change and the environment, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, indicated in opening the debate on this group so well, are obligations that the UK is a party to.
I want to speak first to Amendment 21 in the name of my noble friend Lord Oates who, as my noble friend Lady Northover has said, cannot be here today because he is at a funeral. The amendment is also signed by my noble friends Lord Fox and Lady Sheehan. I shall also address the cross-party Amendment 40 which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Oates but has been spoken to very eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I am sure that if the noble Lords, Lord Duncan of Springbank and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, had been able to take part in the debate on this group, they would have done so. I am grateful for their support.
I turn first to Amendment 21, which should be looked at in the context of other amendments to Clause 2 to expand the provisions of the Bill to agreements that have been signed as part of the EU and now, going forward, to new agreements. As such, the amendments limit the scope of the use of implementing powers to all agreements only with countries that are party to the Paris agreement. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change deals with greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation, mitigation and finance. As my noble friend Lady Sheehan indicated, the Paris agreement was signed in 2016. As of this year, it has been signed by 196 states, while 189 have become a party to it, with the only significant omissions being Iran and Turkey. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others have said, in June 2017, the US President, Donald Trump, announced his intention to withdraw from the agreement. However, reassuringly for some of us, Joe Biden the Democrat candidate, signalled as recently as Tuesday night that if he is successful in the election, he will seek for the US to rejoin.
Our amendment is perfectly clear and I will show how to some extent it links with Amendment 40. The Paris agreement is now a foundation block for the global effort at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is simply impossible to strip out the efforts to tackle climate change without also adapting trading practices. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has indicated, this is an area where these can be seen in separate lights. It is worth reminding the Committee that low-carbon exports alone in goods and services from the UK in 2018 were worth £5.3 billion. If you add on top of that UK legal consulting, investment products and the UK’s global leadership in arbitration and the City of London with the financial options it offers for sustainability products, we are a world leader in global trade on the environment and sustainability. It is, I think, a simple fact that for the UK to be an independent global trading nation, any deep and comprehensive free trade agreement that we would be willing to enter into should be part of and consistent with our Paris climate agreement.
We have taken this approach as a result of being a member of the EU. If the Government do not consider that we should continue with this, can they explain why not? In essence, the Government seem to be seeking continuity in our trading relationships, but not continuity in the legal framework for climate that we have helped to shape and were a part of in the European Union.
I have in my notes a reminder to reference the fact that Ministers will probably say that they can be trusted, given the continuity agreements that we have signed already, and that it is government policy not to move away from those. But every time the Government say that, in my view it strengthens the argument that if that is the consensus across the political parties, there is merit in making it a statutory function. At a time when the Minister is telling the Committee that we need have no concern about climate change commitments, Liz Truss appointed Tony Abbott as the UK trade commissioner. I shall remind the Committee what I said at Second Reading: in 2017, he told the Global Warming Policy Foundation that
“it’s climate change policy that’s doing harm. Climate change itself is probably doing good.”
I think that the UK approach should be stronger than that.
Until now, the approach has been that, as I have mentioned, the European Union has had in its free trade agreements so far a trade and sustainable development chapter. I want to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He seemed to suggest that this approach, which is set down in European Union law, should no longer be the British approach and that British trade agreements should not have a trade and sustainable development chapter in them. I believe strongly that they should and that it is in our interests that they should. Why will the Government not replicate the approach of maintaining agreements with trade and sustainable development chapters in them? As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said, if it comes to the opportunity to enhance agreements, this is the chance to do so because it is the trade and sustainability chapters in the agreements, especially with the least developed countries and those with which we have EPAs, that are the mechanism of dialogue in order to enhance them.
I turn to the United States. I have reflected on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He seemed to suggest that these amendments would be restrictive. He may be aware of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act 2015 which sets the parameters of US trade policy. Section 2 sets the trade negotiating objectives of which subsections (5) and (7) are
“mutually supportive and to seek to protect and preserve the environment and enhance the international means of doing so.”
That legislation by Congress, which the noble Lord says restricts the trade representative of the United States—I think it empowers them—states, as far as Congress is concerned, the remit of what the United States will negotiate. The consequence of what President Trump has said with regard to those international agreements has been significant, because the United States’ legislation states that it can agree a free trade agreement with a country only where both are party to the same international obligations.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. There have been some heartfelt speeches, with not a little similarity to those made during the recent passage through this House of the Agriculture Bill, as my noble friend Lord Caithness pointed out. I have been left in no doubt about the strength of feeling about the importance of environmental protection as it has been linked by Peers to trade. Some powerful speeches were made by many, including my noble friend Lord Sheikh, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
I will first address Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, my noble friend Lord Duncan and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, which would stipulate that Clause 2 could be used only to implement trade agreements which are fully compliant with named international environmental obligations, including the Paris climate change agreement. We understand and share the public’s support for the UK’s high standards of environmental protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, put it more eloquently and extensively than I, but there is so much to do when it comes to fighting climate change. However, this Government have already done a huge amount to protect and improve the environment.
Our departure from the EU offers a unique opportunity to design policies that drive environmental improvement with a powerful and permanent impact tailored to the UK’s needs. As set out in the 25-year environment plan, our ambition is to be the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than we found it. It is worth emphasising that we were the first major economy to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050. We are doubling our international climate finance spend to £11.6 billion by between 2021 and 2025. The UK has world-leading capabilities in areas including offshore wind, smart energy systems and electric vehicle manufacture. As I read my newspaper last week, I noticed that the sales of electric and hybrid vehicles recently overtook the sale of diesel vehicles, which is interesting progress. As your Lordships have already heard, none of our 20 signed continuity agreements has reduced environmental protection in any area, and nor will they.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, raised three important concerns about FTAs which do not have standards included. I remind her that decisions on standards are not made in FTAs; they are domestic decisions which are and always will be made in Parliament. No FTA in itself has the power to change standards. Giving evidence to the Bill Committee in the other place, a representative of ClientEarth, a leading environmental law charity, described our approach to continuity as “sensible”. The Trade Justice Movement, the NFU, the Confederation of British Industry and others agreed.
Let me now address Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, the Government were accused of attempting to deliver upcoming agreements which go far beyond our mandate for continuity. I emphasise that that is not the case and, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, we have stayed true to our mandate of reproducing the original EU agreements, subject only to the technical changes required to make the agreements operable in a UK context.
In some areas, significant technical changes to agreements are required to make them work in a UK context. In these circumstances, the power would be used to make the necessary changes to UK domestic law to ensure that the obligations under the agreement are met. Let me give your Lordships an example: resizing quotas with a trading partner to reflect the fact that the UK comprises a different share of a partner country’s trade than did the EU.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Government have recently reached agreement in principle for a UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership, which analysis shows could increase bilateral trade by £15.2 billion and offer a £1.5 billion boost to the UK economy. This agreement locks in the benefits of the EU-Japan deal and, picking up on my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s argument—and her hopes—goes even further in a number of areas, such as digital and financial services. By excluding this agreement from the scope of the Bill, the amendment would deny UK business and consumers the benefits which the agreement will bring. Your Lordships will already be aware of the enhanced scrutiny package which we have provided, reflecting its status as an enhanced agreement. The Government do not need this power to negotiate or sign agreements, but to implement in domestic law the obligations which arise from them. The “substantially similar” standard is ambiguous and would, unfortunately, introduce an element of uncertainty to the scope of the power.
I will address Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Oates, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. We believe that it is not required—there, I have said it, which will not please the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, but I will give my explanations.
I have set out the Government’s commitment to maintaining the UK’s high standards of environmental protections and our ambitious targets for the future. In addition, of the 40 continuity agreements that we are seeking to make, every partner country has signed the Paris Agreement, although it has not yet been fully ratified by all partners. I remind your Lordships that this Bill cannot be used to implement any free trade agreement with the United States, as it did not have a free trade agreement with the EU on exit day. We have already said that we will bring forward separate legislation for new FTAs if required.
Turning to Amendment 22, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, while I understand the concerns that some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, have raised about this power, without it our continuity agreements would be inoperable, which in turn would disrupt the trade flows on which businesses and consumers rely. This power is necessary. It is proportionate and constrained. It is proportionate because it allows solely for the amendment of primary legislation that is direct principal EU legislation or primary legislation that is retained EU law. Obligations in continuity agreements often fall into one of these two categories, which is why this power is needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, said that he did not think that the Henry VIII power is sufficiently constrained and urged the Government to listen to, among others, the Delegated Powers Committee on the use of these powers. I was pleased to see—I hope that he will have seen it, too—that the Delegated Powers Committee in its 21st report expressed no concerns at all over the delegated powers in this legislation. In fact, I point out to the noble Lord that the committee has twice considered this and raised no concerns on either occasion.
On Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Oates, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I can confirm that our continuity agreements and the underlying EU agreements on which they are based are in full compliance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and every other international environmental obligation named in the amendment.
Amendment 69, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, seeks to achieve similar outcomes to the amendments that we have already discussed. It would give Parliament a greater role in determining whether food, animal welfare and environmental standards have been weakened. It would also amend the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 to oblige Her Majesty’s Treasury to have regard to these standards when establishing tariffs and duties.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard spoke about unintended consequences and I draw your Lordships’ attention to two that the proposed new clause could have. The first relates to the impact on the developing world, from which we import a huge amount of food each year. Due to the predominance of agriculture in the economies of developing countries, increasing barriers to trade between these countries and the UK could have an exaggerated effect on the economies of countries with which we sign an FTA. It is not economically viable for firms in the developing world to produce goods to multiple sets of standards for different export markets. Higher standards inevitably lead to higher costs, which could in turn lead to less demand for products and exports from these countries.
The second unintended consequence is the disruption posed to UK consumers in the price and availability of foodstuffs. The effect of the amendment could be to disrupt agri-food imports provided under FTAs entering the country in the short and possibly longer terms, while also jeopardising relationships with friendly trade partners, who would be concerned about this unique and unilateral action. When it comes to developing countries in particular, the UK imports predominantly raw food and ingredients, such as tea, cocoa and bananas, among other things. Where these imports are included within FTAs, they would be required to prove that they meet the UK’s domestic environmental standards, among others, before they could continue to be exported to the UK, which would put businesses in developing countries at risk. It would also disincentivise developing countries from seeking new opportunities through FTAs with the UK. On the proposed amendment to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act, I assure the Committee that consideration for food, animal welfare and environmental standards underpins government policy in every department.
On Amendment 73, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the UK will continue to be bound by those international multilateral environmental agreements —MEAs—to which it is party. The amendment, however, goes beyond the UK’s MEA commitments. It could prevent the UK from negotiating and agreeing international trade agreements with many countries at a time when the Government’s priority is to promote free trade as well as to improve the trade and export opportunities for sectors where increased trade can provide both economic and environmental and climate benefits. In other words, there is merit for us, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard mentioned. The proposed new clause could hinder both our trade and environment and climate ambitions by restricting the opportunities for dialogue with trading partners and limiting the constructive dialogue and good will that are key to making positive progress as the UK leads globally on climate change at COP 26 and more broadly.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Younger for explaining in some detail the negotiating mandate we have agreed with the US. Could he confirm that this extends to animal welfare, as well as environmental protection standards, which is the subject of Amendment 69?
I was a little confused when my noble friend Lady Noakes talked about tomatoes. I had not talked about tomatoes, but there we are. The Minister referred to “unintended consequences”, which I am loath to envisage, and specifically to tea, cocoa and bananas. I understand that they are largely covered by fair trade provisions for marketing in the UK. Is that indeed the case?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. I am not sure that I can be drawn to talk about tomatoes. The best thing I could do, particularly for the points on the US, is to write to her with a full answer on animal welfare, which I could attempt, but also on tea, cocoa, bananas and the fair trade question.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke on this group of amendments. The Bill is an opportunity to restate trade policy in the important area of environmental protections, in support of the UK’s international obligations. With COP 26 next year, when the Government must be a global leader on the climate emergency, the UK must set an example to the rest of the world by drawing attention to trade that is built on international commitments entered into with so many multilateral agreements.
I hear again that the UK cannot impose regulations on overseas jurisdictions. I merely reply that we already send inspectors into factories and workplaces in countries such as India and Bangladesh, to check on their work practices in the manufacture of clothing. The nature of trade agreements has changed considerably since the UK entered the EU, when it ceased to be the sole competent authority on trade matters, a point acknowledged by the Minister in his reply to an earlier debate on Tuesday. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for his remarks on the powers subject to annulment by Amendment 22. Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee has not been entirely satisfied by the Government’s reply on this presumptive power.
However, I listened carefully to the reply from the Minister and the many contributions regarding how the Committee may return to the issue later, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for further consideration.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 13. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 13
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not in any way restrict the ability—(a) to make public services at a national or local level subject to public monopoly;(b) to make public services at a national or local level subject to exclusive rights granted to private operators; and(c) to bring public services at a national or local level back into the public sector for delivery by public sector employees.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that regulations made under the Bill can only be made if the trade agreement which the regulations would implement does not contravene the ability of a UK government to take public services back into public ownership.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to open this important group and move Amendment 13 in my name. I indicate, at this point, that I shall be supporting Amendment 51. Protecting public services must be a priority for any Government, but we must not let bad trade deals limit the ability to provide this protection. In doing this, allowing services to be brought back into public ownership is one of the important tools Governments should not give away lightly or easily in negotiations. Concerns are well documented about how standstill and ratchet clauses in agreements can lock in levels of privatisation and other forms of liberalisation and accelerate them, which will limit the scope of future Governments to take sensible steps, when services are not being properly provided, to bring them back into the public sector.
Most US trade deals also contain forms of investor-state dispute settlement, which could allow foreign investors to sue the UK Government for actions that threaten their profits, including renationalising parts of the former public sector. ISDS does not pose a hypothetical threat, but a very real one. The Portuguese Government were sued using ISDS when the metro in Lisbon was returned to public ownership. ISDS clauses in bilateral investment treaties are being used now to prepare a series of cases against the UK Government for pausing construction contracts during the pandemic.
The TUC is particularly worried that the Bill does not exempt all public services from trade agreements, as this would allow part-privatised services to be included in commitments to reduce barriers to trade. When part-privatised services are included in this way, they cannot be brought back into public ownership as this would be regarded as a barrier to other countries being able to access the UK market. Only last week, the TUC expressed concern about the UK’s intention to join CPTPP, since CPTPP has no general exemption for public services.
Amendment 13 would ensure that regulations made under the Bill to implement agreements can be made only if they do not contravene the ability of a UK Government to take public services back into public ownership. Public services provide an essential public good. Ministers must not forget that as they seek to clinch a trade deal at any cost.
I indicated I will be strongly supporting Amendment 51, in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton, to protect the NHS and publicly funded healthcare services in other parts of the UK from any form of control from outside the UK. If the Covid crisis has taught us anything, it is how reliant we are on the NHS and care services. The idea of them being put out to tender to foreign companies fills most of us with dread.
The Minister will undoubtedly say that the Government have made clear that the NHS will not be on the table in any trade deal, especially with the US. I am sure he will stress that we will not be paying higher prices for drugs, nor moving patient data across the Atlantic, but the US negotiating objectives for a UK FTA, in the section on procedural fairness for pharmaceuticals and medical devices, clearly call for “government regulatory reimbursement regimes” to provide
“full market access for U.S. products.”
The US President has clearly said that foreign Governments extort “unreasonably low prices” from US pharmaceutical firms, and he directed his trade negotiator to make the issue
“a top priority with every trading partner.”
The Prime Minister also made clear in a Telegraph article that he supports an insurance-based healthcare system for non-essential treatments.
I sense we are losing clarity, but we can provide it by supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lady Thornton. I believe that the lack of scrutiny mechanisms for trade agreements and the Government’s desire not to put NHS protections in the Bill are connected, and I am not the only one. The British Medical Association has said that under the Bill
“Parliament does not have adequate powers to guide and scrutinise trade negotiations and the current process provides no legal mechanism to directly influence or permanently block trade agreements. This could mean the UK enters into trade deals that have significant impact on public health and the domestic healthcare sector without Parliament having a meaningful role in scrutiny.”
We should heed that warning.
Global Justice Now has also found that the US wants its companies to have unrestricted access to UK data, including NHS health records. The value of this health data is estimated at £10 billion a year. The Bill in its current form could allow UK data to be moved to servers in America and stop the NHS from analysing its health data without paying royalties. This cannot be right and is not within the spirit of our approach to our healthcare system. Let us commit in statute to protecting our beloved NHS in trade deals, especially during this pandemic when we are relying on it the most.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 51. I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam for setting the scene for this debate. The amendment inserts a new clause into the Trade Bill which protects the NHS and publicly funded health and care services from any form of control from outside the United Kingdom. Like my noble friend, I thank the BMA and the Trade Justice Movement for their briefings and the Library for an excellent brief. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for their support.
The Government are pressing ahead with trade negotiations with the United States, the EU and elsewhere, despite there being no system of transparency or scrutiny of trade deals. Your Lordships’ House passed an amendment to the previous Trade Bill on parliamentary scrutiny. Since then, the Government have not made good on promises to give Parliament a say in new trade deals. Noble Lords should support a similar amendment to this Bill. The Trade Bill should be amended to protect the UK’s high food and animal welfare standards, and to protect the NHS and public health from provisions in trade deals.
The Covid crisis has hit global trade. It is essential that the UK’s trade policy maintains the right to regulate, protects the NHS and supports countries in the global south. We are concerned that, at present, Parliament does not have adequate powers to guide and scrutinise trade negotiations. My noble friends Lord Stevenson and Lord Lennie explained this to the Committee on Tuesday and the current process provides no legal mechanism to directly influence or permanently block trade agreements. This could mean the UK entering into trade deals that have a significant impact on public health and the domestic healthcare sector without Parliament having a meaningful role in scrutiny. As the Trade Bill is currently the only legislative vehicle for Parliament’s oversight of trade negotiations, we believe that additional scrutiny mechanisms are vital to protect the NHS and public health as the UK begins to negotiate independent free trade agreements in earnest.
As my noble friend said, this amendment seeks to ensure that our NHS is protected. It is necessary because this Government, and the one before them, have form in this area. Last year, noble Lords discussed the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. It gave the Secretary of State powers, as the Constitution Committee put it, to make any healthcare deal with anyone, anywhere in the world. I am pleased to say that your Lordships’ House successfully refocused that Bill on to the issue of 27 million European health insurance card holders and their interests at the time, instead of laying the groundwork for trade deals involving our NHS. On 5 February last year, I said that
“it seems to open the door to healthcare negotiations across the rest of the world. In other words, it also lays the basis for trade and foreign affairs discussion concerning healthcare. One must ask: which countries do the Government have in mind, and for what purpose and why is the Bill addressing world issues and not limited to the European Union?”—[Official Report, 5/2/19; col. 1484.]
That was remedied by your Lordships’ House. However, it is clear that if that Bill had been agreed as originally drafted, it would have opened the way for this Government already to be in negotiations with the USA and others, and to give them open access to our NHS.
While the Government have repeatedly pledged that the NHS is “not on the table” in trade negotiations, leaked documents reveal that that is not the case, as my noble friend Lord Bassam outlined. Let us be quite safe. The Trade Bill should be amended to protect the NHS; we should have these safeguards in place, in statute. It is vital that the Bill protects the health and social care sectors by safeguarding future options for rolling back either privatisation or restructuring. We need to protect our right to restructure our health and social care services into a more collaborative model. Trade agreements must not be permitted to lock in current or higher levels of privatisation within the NHS in England, nor lead to privatisation in the devolved nations without their say so.
To do this, the Bill must ensure that the health and social care sectors are excluded from the scope of all future trade agreements. The Bill must rule out investor protection and dispute resolution mechanisms in UK trade deals to ensure that private foreign companies cannot sue the UK Government for legitimate public procurement and regulatory decisions that we decide to take with regard to our public services, including the NHS. If a future Government want to change the structure of the NHS, they must not be prevented from doing so by trade deals.
It is worth noting that an EU investment treaty recently resulted in the Slovakian Government being ordered to pay €22 million in damages to a foreign private health insurance firm after it decided to reverse the privatisation of its national sickness insurance market. Investor protection mechanisms have also been used extensively to challenge public health initiatives like tobacco plain packaging. There is a great deal at stake here. We need to include protections to ensure that NHS price control mechanisms and the UK’s current intellectual property regime are maintained.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I begin by addressing Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton—ably introduced by him—to which I was pleased to attach my name. Looking at this, I cannot but think of the many wearying social media debates I engaged in about how our membership of the European Union did not stop the bringing of disastrously outsourced public services back into public hands. But that is now all history. I think all sides of the House can agree about what won the 2016 referendum. The result was a clear direction from the public on this, if not much else: take back control. That must surely apply, as a matter of priority, to public services. I look back to the 2012 Olympics, an age ago now, but it is hard to forget the G4S security fiasco, when the Army had to step in. That is what has now happened with our railways: the control that the public has long been asking for. I recall that, even in 2015, a majority of Conservative voters wanted to see our railways run for public good, not private profit. It is what should happen with the disastrously underperforming, privatised, national Covid test and trace system. The private sector can always walk away. It makes a mess and leaves the public sector to pick up the pieces. The service users suffer, the providers are loaded with debt, the public pay more and a few walk away with the profits, usually stashed in a handy tax haven.
Given the rigid ideology of the Government, I will not even ask the Minister to agree with me, but I will ask him to agree with the idea of democracy, of keeping options open, including the option to take back control of public services. It is a legal principle that one Parliament cannot bind future ones, but locking us into trade deals where a country has given its word does, presumably, have that effect under the rule of law. The amendment does not force the Government to do anything, despite the obvious public good of bringing public services back into public hands. It does prevent the closing down of democratic decision making: it keeps control. I invite the Minister to tell me why keeping our options open is a bad idea and to support Amendment 13.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has ably laid out the detail of Amendment 51, to which I was pleased to attach my name alongside those of the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Fox. There is little doubt that, of all the elements of the Trade Bill, protection of the NHS has attracted the greatest attention. As many Peers have already reflected in the Committee, this is a reminder that trade Bills are of far greater public interest and concern now than they were when this House and the other place last considered them. It is a powerful path for the argument for new systems of oversight equal to those our MEPs enjoyed and the US Congress regularly utilises.
I recall taking part in a march in 2014 with the group called 999 Call for the NHS. It started in Jarrow, following in famous footsteps, although I only walked the Luton to Bedford leg. We stopped for a comfort break at an establishment along the route. A young man behind the bar asked: “Why are we suddenly so busy?” We told him: “We are marching against the privatisation of the NHS.” He said: “What? It still says NHS above the door of my doctor’s surgery.”
Of course we know that that is not true: there is significant privatisation already. To cite just one statistic, 13% of in-patient mental healthcare beds in England are privately run. In Manchester, patients have a 50:50 chance of being admitted to a privately owned hospital and a one in four chance of the bed being provided by an American-owned company. We have lost control in significant areas of the NHS. This amendment makes sure that we can take it back and not lose further control.
Finally, I will refer briefly to Amendment 75. We have yet to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and I look forward to her explanation, but my eye notes with approval the amendment’s provision against the use of investor-state dispute settlement procedures—another great threat to public democratic control and decision-making and something that the Green Party has long campaigned against. Protection of access to generic affordable drugs and preventing excess windfall profits for pharmaceutical companies: I cannot see anything not to like in this amendment.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 75 in my name. Intellectual property rights, if governed badly, can result in monopolies and unethical practices, particularly when it comes to pharmaceutical companies and medicines. In recent years, these practices have become more commonplace. Indeed, the NHS’s spiralling drugs bill led even the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, to recognise that pharmaceutical companies are trying to, in his words, “rip off taxpayers”, and that big business must be more socially responsible. Something must be terribly wrong. In an interview in the Times, he condemns profiteering on products that rely on government-funded research and NHS patient data.
In the UK, high prices have put pressure on national health budgets and led to the rationing of treatments—for example, on breakthrough medicines for hepatitis C and cancer. There are also significant delays for cystic fibrosis patients to get access to the drug Orkambi given the unaffordable price that the pharmaceutical company Vertex was demanding. It took years of stalled negotiations between NICE and Vertex and the threat of a compulsory licence to push Vertex to lower the price. In the meantime, 200 people died. The breast cancer drug trastuzumab—I hope I said that correctly—is unavailable to the vast majority of women across the developing world because Roche holds multiple patents on the drug in South Africa, blocking biosimilars from being sold in the country until 2033. This is despite the fact that trastuzumab is included in the WHO’s essential medicines list.
These and other examples of unethical pricing regimes by pharmaceutical companies prompted me to put forward my Amendment 75. It aims to ensure that a Government’s right to use internationally agreed safeguards—such as they are in medicines—to protect public health, with a particular focus on securing access to less costly generic medicines, is not undermined or restricted by international trade agreements to which we are a party.
The amendment is rooted in the UN’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, which is a binding international human rights treaty that we in the UK ratified in 1976. The ICESCR ensures the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, including—and this is the part that is pertinent to the amendment—the right to the highest attainable standard of health. What Government would not aspire to the best available healthcare for their citizens? But whether they would want that or not is immaterial; if they are a party to the ICESCR then this is a statutory duty that they owe their citizens. That is the point of the amendment. It puts on the face of the Bill something that is not just nice to have but that the Government are already committed to and should be proud of: to proclaim their commitment to the highest standard of health for all their citizens.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 51, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which I have added my name. I also look forward to the comments of my friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Under normal Committee circumstances, we would have enjoyed debating some of these amendments.
In my view, this is the most important amendment for our highly valued NHS. Any trade deal that allows someone to own and manage or have access to any patient data, in no matter how small a way, is a threat to our NHS. The greatest perceived or real threat is from a trade deal with the USA that includes any part of the NHS. Our health service is free at the point of need; the USA healthcare system, on the other hand, is based on ability to pay. That in itself defines what the motives will be for any USA organisation wanting to get involved in any aspects of our NHS.
The Government repeatedly say that our NHS will not be on the table and that it is not for sale. What does that mean? The Government and NHS England already allow private contractors to bid for health services. Recent examples are Deloitte and Serco, for Covid-19-related services. Tennessee-based Acadia runs nearly a third of mental health beds, and the Priory Group has won many NHS contracts. Centene, a subsidiary of Centene Corporation, a tech and logistic provider, works with many GP practices. Palantir, an American data-mining company, is contracted to track, model, and analyse data from Covid-19. Optum, a subsidiary of the giant US health provider UnitedHealth, has contracts with many CCGs.
It is said that the citizens of the UK are not bothered who provides the service, as long as it is free when they need it, but they will if the taxes have to go up, services become poor and they have to pay for extras. While our health service is not perfect in every way, we get a bigger bang for our buck, despite being one of the least funded of OECD countries. Commercial companies may not wish or be allowed directly to run clinical services, but may be interested in managing the services. NHS England is moving to integrated care services, devising systems to be able to run such services. American companies such as UnitedHealth and other IPOs may well be interested in running regional services, with a contract that allows them to keep any surplus as profits. They could do that only by cutting services, particularly in secondary care.
The jewels in the crown of our NHS are information and data. A national health service that in the near future will be completely digitised is a goldmine of data, estimated to be worth well over £10 billion a year —data that is a goldmine for developing artificial intelligence, robotics and so on. No one in the world has such a database. Add to this the genomics data that UK has for both patients and population that is unique in the world makes the NHS highly attractive for developing and testing of personalised medicines. Digitised patient information is of immense value for doing clinical trials with stratified patients. There is no other country in the world that can so quickly identify patient groups required for such trials, as demonstrated recently in a clinical trial of a US-manufactured drug, conducted with speed and lower cost, mostly in the United Kingdom. It is this kind of information that makes our NHS is so valuable; any pharma, biotech, medical devices or diagnostic company would be mad not to want to get its hands on it.
The Government have said that they would welcome companies to come and help innovate. That is an invitation. The unicorn companies we wish the UK to develop will become a reality, but the UK will not be the owners. Of course, it could all be for good, except that it will be profit driven. Why is it that USA has the most expensive healthcare system in the world and delivers one of the worst outcomes in health? The big pharma companies say that we pay too little for our medicines, as already mentioned, through our regulatory system and medicines reimbursement regime. While I accept that NICE methodologies need a review, pharma would want much more than that in any UK-USA trade deal. I declare an interest here: in October 1997, I submitted a paper developed by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges to establish a national institute of clinical effectiveness, which became the NICE of today, to the then Minister of Health in the Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington. So I may have some right to comment on the methodologies of NICE.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said, even when medicines patents run out, US pharma would seek data exclusivity to prevent cheaper drugs being produced. For all those reasons, why would any country negotiating a trade deal not wish to have any aspects of our NHS to be part of it, particularly the USA? To be able to get a share of delivery of service, manage or procure for any part of NHS is a profitable prize in itself; to be able to get hold of even a part of the health and patient data, with the possibility of owning it, is a prize measured in billions of dollars.
The only way to keep our NHS in our hands is to rule out any possibility of it being included in any trade documents maybe through mechanisms of positive listing or legislation in the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will be committed to do this at Report. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Fox (LD)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I shall speak to Amendment 51, to which I am a signatory. Before I do that, I commend my noble friend Lady Sheehan, who spoke eloquently on her Amendment 75, one part of which was about the dangers of price gouging. She mentioned a number of different ploys, as did the noble Lord, Lord Patel. But there is another one, whereby companies gain control of the generic and the replacement for the generic, then seek to phase out the generic. That has been happening recently. Perhaps the Minister can explain how, in trading terms, we can combat that kind of behaviour.
The dangers of ISDS, which were set out by my noble friend Lady Sheehan and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, are real and present. I look forward to the Minister’s response to their speeches on that issue.
Amendment 51 is designed to protect the NHS from potential dangers. If we are setting out on the great ship of global trade, it may be a lifebelt. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is right that this Bill is the only game in town for Parliament to exert its views, and this issue is of real concern to many Members of both Houses. That is why we are right to be having this discussion today.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, was brilliant and devastating as he described the threats to our health service—threats that it is already facing. He described how we are on the brink of serious dangers, which the amendment highlights and seeks to avoid. The stakes are high, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, set out when speaking to an earlier group of amendments. The NHS is a huge potential market for any national economy with which we might wish to conclude a trade deal, not least, of course, the United States of America. However, we should acknowledge that it is also clear that the UK is in a position to continue to benefit substantially from the right relationship with international medical service and pharmaceutical companies, and we have to get that balance right between closing and opening our borders.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have some sympathy with this group of amendments, and Amendment 51 in particular. I will make a very brief contribution. In summing up the last debate, my noble friend Lord Younger very helpfully shared with us the negotiating mandate the Government have achieved with the United States in particular. I think it would put our minds at rest if, in summing up this small group of amendments, my noble friend could repeat the contents of that negotiating mandate, particularly as regards any possible negotiating mandate as regards the health service. I know we have had repeated assurances that that is the case, but I think it would be very helpful to know what actually is covered in the negotiating mandate and whether there is any window at all for an aggressive approach to be made by the United States in this regard.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lord Patel have very eloquently spoken to these amendments. They are incredibly important, and I strongly support them. We have to protect the NHS and publicly funded healthcare services across the UK from any control from outside the UK. To do otherwise would cost us dearly and would, in the end, prevent us looking after our own, because we would be told what to do from outside.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has shown, all aspects of the NHS and social care must be protected from trade agreements at every level. We need to maintain the option of reversing the privatisation which has already occurred, if that is what we decide to do in the future, and we must be free to create collaborative health and social care. Trade agreements must not drive us into some kind of locked-in increased privatisation of the NHS or, indeed, force any such change in the devolved nations. The health and social care sectors must be excluded from the scope of all future trade agreements, otherwise we will find that the NHS is irretrievably undermined.
On maintaining quality, we are world leaders in pharmaceutical research and development, yet access does not always match innovation. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has pointed out that in the first year of a new medicine being launched, only one-fifth of eligible patients in the UK get access compared to those in France and Germany. Our ability to regulate and maintain the quality and safety of medicines and medical devices must not be undermined by some small sub-paragraph in a trade agreement that slips by almost unnoticed.
In addition, medicines and medical devices must remain affordable in the UK. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society highlighted the huge extra cost to the NHS after Essential Pharma disclosed plans to cease production of Priadel, its cheapest lithium carbonate product, due to restrictions on permitted pricing. The suggested alternatives for bipolar disorder owned by the same company can cost at least 10 times as much.
So this is not only about who runs the NHS today. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, our NHS databases are extremely valuable. They are a resource for our future research and development and, from that, for our future economic development. If we lose them through a trade agreement, we will irretrievably damage our future economic development.
I now turn briefly to Amendment 75, which ensures that the Government can uphold the right of citizens to access medicines under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as part of the right to the highest attainable standard of healthcare. Modern free trade agreements are used increasingly as vehicles to further pharmaceutical industry interests ahead of public health needs. They increasingly include clauses on intellectual property, pharmaceutical regulatory processes and investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms that affect price and decrease access to medicines. To secure affordable access to medicines, the Government must be able to grant compulsory licences, deal with exhausted intellectual property rights, strengthen patentability criteria and determine what constitutes a national emergency, as laid out in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. The Covid pandemic has shown why we must always be able to make technologies available quickly, widely and at the lowest cost. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, generics are not always cheaper in a complex market that can easily be manipulated.
Our NHS database is extremely valuable, and its value is increasing. It cannot be thrown away. There are times when short-term industry profits are not good for patients and delay access to affordable medicines and health technologies. These amendments aim to secure our healthcare for the future. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that informed patient consent requires a patient to know whether data is held, what it is used for and how it can be manipulated, even when it is anonymised. They would rightly be outraged if that data is allowed to put profits in the pockets of other countries, knowing that it will never be ploughed back into the NHS—certainly not at 100%.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will intervene only briefly, initially to support my noble friend Lord Bassam in some of the examples he gave. Dispute settlement in trade deals is pretty important as is what is put into the deal. I am not clear about—but I hope I am—whether “public services” includes critical infrastructure. As far as I am concerned, the two go together. I would cite energy, for a start, because one can see the problems we are going to have with energy in this country with the collapse of the nuclear deal. We must have a mix. There is a good chance that the lights and the gas may go out and the Government may want to move at some point to take monopoly control of the service. They ought to be able to do that, but there are too many sticky fingers for my liking in the issues involved and therefore I think the idea behind the amendment by my noble friend Lord Bassam is very good.
I want to make a brief point about Amendment 51 on the health service. I thought the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, was devastating with its list of companies. Do not get me wrong, I have no objection to the NHS or other public services using the best available management tools, techniques and individuals to provide services but making use of them is not the same as handing over ownership. That is where one has to draw the line. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made a very fair point. The public do not care who is providing the service as long as it is there when they need it, free at the point of use. He went on to say that they will care when their taxes go up. That point is when someone, such as the Prime Minister, will say, “You can avoid that by buying some insurance.” It is the slippery road to push us down the insurance route. I know we are all nice people in the Lords but frankly I do not trust the Prime Minister.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, many of the debates here take me back to 2012, and I look forward to the contribution from my former boss, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I want to speak in support of Amendment 75 in the name of my noble friend Lady Sheehan. She has laid the amendment out effectively and comprehensively. There has long been tension between those marketing and those purchasing proprietary medicines and generics. Clearly, where pharmaceutical companies invest in research and development they should be rewarded for that, but we also know how expert the industry is at claiming R&D when that is beyond what they have actually done.
This issue plays out in the NHS but also internationally, particularly in developing countries where basic medicines may not be affordable and dependence on generics is vital. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, the pandemic has shown how important this is. It reinforces that we are all interlinked. An infection that affects the community in one part of the world is within days potentially spread worldwide. It is in all our interests that disease is countered everywhere, as well as that being the right thing to do.
As my noble friend Lady Sheehan said, Amendment 75 affirms the Government’s right to use internationally agreed safeguards to protect public health, including securing access to more affordable generic medicines. As she said, earlier FTAs often focused on tariffs and trade in goods, while in the past couple of decades FTAs have become more comprehensive. Of course, many such developments are welcome in terms of ensuring standards, as we have been discussing, but provisions can also inappropriately protect monopolistic business. As I have said, genuinely innovative companies have a case, but their role can be exploited. In recognition of this, the WTO’s TRIPS agreement included public health safeguards. These were reaffirmed in the 2001 Doha declaration. Protecting genuine innovation has therefore already been addressed by the WTO, and it is important that these proposals are taken forward. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I shall start with Amendments 51 and 75, dealing with protecting the NHS and access to medicines. The Government’s position on this is clear: they are committed to the NHS and to high standards of public health, and they are committed to ensuring that any trade agreements will respect that. We have been quite explicit on that. What noble Lords think that other countries such as the US might want from a trade agreement is, frankly, not relevant and should not be driving the content of this Bill.
In my view, these amendments are part of the continuing public scaremongering about my party’s approach to the NHS. Indeed, I was surprised to find noble Lords mentioning the existing and long-standing involvement of private sector companies in the NHS, some of which are owned by non-UK interests, in derogatory terms. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I celebrate the fact that we use private sector services where it makes sense in the delivery of healthcare services, and the fact that we use them to a marginal extent in the NHS does not affect the Government’s commitment to the NHS nor their determination to protect it. I wish that noble Lords would hear that. I was frankly shocked to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about not trusting the Prime Minister on the NHS.
The real reason I put my name down to speak on this group is that my attention was caught by Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. I know that he is an old-fashioned Labour man and that, deep down, he will want to nationalise or renationalise anything that moves. Indeed, I first met the noble Lord when we were debating private finance initiatives back in the 1990s. Needless to say, the noble Lord opposed anything to do with the private sector being involved, and I have to say that I lost that debate, but it was, of course, before the Labour Government of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, came in and took up PFI with such misguided enthusiasm that they practically wrecked the finances of the NHS. However, I say to the noble Lord that he cannot seriously think that a Conservative Government will put in a Bill introduced by them references to public services being subject to monopoly or exclusive rights or, more importantly, allowing them to be brought back into the public sector as if those are good things. I accept that sometimes they are necessary things, but the thought that we would legislate as if they are good values to protect in legislation is, frankly, for the birds.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about today’s drugs not always necessarily being the cheapest. I accept that, but on the other hand, I am sure he would agree that in the overwhelming range of medicines, today’s drugs are highly valuable and economic.
I remember that during my time as director of VSO, I attended a training course for medical personnel of all kinds, doctors, nurses and so on, who would be going off to take up exacting assignments in the poorest parts of the world. The lecturer was absolutely brilliant. He was an eminent physician who has gone on to even more eminent positions. At a certain point he dished out two pieces of paper each to everyone in the room. He said, “Please write down on one piece of paper the last drug that you prescribed for a patient. On the second piece of paper, please write down the name of the last drug that you took.”
The lecturer collected these in and then went into a state of outrage—he was a very effective performer—saying, “You are going to do vital medical work in various parts of the world”. As he went through the bits of paper, he said, “Look at this! You know that, for this patented drug, there is a generic drug available at a cheaper rate. You know that—why have you done it?” People were just flummoxed; they did not know why they had done it. They had got into a culture where too much of the sale of medicines was in the hands of PR and advertising companies that were, on the back of drugs, making a lot of money by finding more attractive ways of presenting things that were available generically.
I also remember at that time that, in Bangladesh, there was a great deal of concern because we were trying to support a factory—an enterprise—that was making generic drugs available in Bangladesh. My goodness, the moves that were afoot to try to undermine the viability of that company.
I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for having introduced her amendment because, if there is one thing that we must hold dear, it is that we cannot allow any further privatisation of the health service by the back door. It is inadvertent sometimes, but sometimes it is quite deliberate by those who try to manipulate trade deals in the interests of their own countries and industries.
I also commend very warmly my noble friend Lord Bassam. He is absolutely right that it is vital that Governments of all persuasions have available without inhibition the opportunity to introduce public ownership where it becomes essential. We again know that there have been too many dangers that these rights may be curbed. We have had a peculiar situation in Britain where, because of the curbs that already exist, we have had nationalised companies in other European countries running British rail systems. That is just absurd. We must not open the door to the possibility that more of that could occur. My noble friend is absolutely right to have brought his amendment into the context of the Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I say first that I very much agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Noakes had to say, which means that I can save myself saying some of those things by thoroughly agreeing with her, in particular on the point she made about the disinformation about private ownership in the NHS.
When the noble Lord, Lord Patel, whom I regard as a friend, makes his points, he has to answer the following question. Is it his proposition that when the Priory Group, which was a UK company for many years, was bought by an American company, that should have been prevented by the UK Government? That is the question that he has to answer. In fact, it was not prevented by the UK Government, and indeed for decades Governments in this country have allowed foreign ownership of UK companies. If we were to stop that, it would of course have very big implications for the investor relationship that we have with other countries. However, that is not what we are proposing, and I do not think that it is what either the Official Opposition or the Liberal Democrats are proposing, so it does not really have any force as an argument.
More to the point is whether anything in our trade relationships and trade agreements that we enter into prejudices our ability to have a National Health Service free at the point of use, paid for out of general taxation and controlled by us as a public service? There is nothing in those trade agreements that allows that. In response to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee—she might care to look at the evidence that has been given—is examining in detail the Government’s proposals for negotiations with the United States on a prospective free trade agreement. That expressly excludes any measures that would have any impact on the NHS or on our ability to control our pharmaceutical pricing and supply system. That is very clear; she can look at it.
All three amendments relate to rollover agreements; they do not talk about future trade agreements. Therefore, the debate about the American free trade agreement is irrelevant to these amendments. I looked at one example —the Canada-EU agreement, which is able to be rolled over with the benefit of implementation through this legislation. A description on the EU legal database of Chapter Nine of the agreement on cross-border trade in services says that
“this chapter fully upholds governments’ ability to regulate and supply services in the public interest.”
On Chapter Eighteen, which relates to state enterprises, monopolies, and enterprises granted special rights or privileges, it says, in terms:
“The rules ensure that both parties have the full freedom of choice in the way they provide public services to their citizens.”
There is a general exception which says that provision can be made
“to protect human, animal or plant life or health”.
I think that the proposers of amendments of this character have to look at what they are proposing and ask whether it changes anything. The rollover agreements comply with those requirements, and therefore the legislation is entirely robust.
I rather deprecate the idea that one proposes amendments and, before listening to the debate, says, “Well, I might bring it back on Report”. I suggest to noble Lords that they listen to the debate and, if they propose to bring back an amendment back on Report, they redesign it so that it bites on future trade agreements. At least we could then have a debate that was relevant. There is nothing in what is proposed here in relation to health or public services, in particular, that bites in any sensible way on the existing trade agreement.
We should remember that these trade agreements do not change domestic law. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for example, that the law of the land says that you cannot introduce charges for NHS services other than by new primary legislation. That is the only way in which it can happen. Therefore, we do not need to trust the Prime Minister; it is in the law. Of course, one can change anything through primary legislation, but the Prime Minister has not done so, and I can confidently say to noble Lords that I know that he will not do so to introduce charging for NHS services. He would not get it through even if he tried.
Therefore, I do not quite get any of this. Frankly, Amendment 13 feels a bit as though the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, wants to ignore the result of the last general election. If the election had gone another way and Jeremy Corbyn had become Prime Minister, he could have done these things and trade agreements would not have stopped him. It is the election that stopped him, and not trying to legislate to stop trade agreements being irrelevant.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for stating in very clear terms the benefit of putting into statute some of the restrictions on some of the activities of our political leaders, so that we do not need to trust them, because these are in the law. I hope that when it comes to future groups in this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others will remember those very wise words of counsel that it is important to have things in writing in our statutes to protect our valued principles and institutions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for doing that.
As my noble friend Lord Fox pointed out—this is at the heart of the debate on this group—the NHS is not just a greatly valued health and social service for our nation but is seen by many as a great economic asset. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right that, when it comes to procurement and the provision of services, there is a great deal that is provided by the private sector. In the debate on the first group, I highlighted that about half the public procurement of the entire UK Government relates to health and that around one-quarter of the beds in the mental health service in the north-west of England are operated by an American health operator. I made no judgment about the good or bad side of that, but simply stated it as a fact. And it is a fact that the United States wants to expand market access to the provision. The question that then comes is: what is the limit and, as my noble friend Lord Fox indicated, what is the right balance? That is a question for the Government.
The Government have stated, as they would say, “categorically”, that the NHS is not for sale. Michael Gove was in the Scottish Parliament just this week, and he said to MSPs:
“The NHS is not for sale under any circumstances.”
My question is: what does he mean by the NHS? For many people, intellectual property and pharmaceuticals, the access to and price of medicines, the delivery of services, the buildings that people are in, and the employers of the people providing those services, are the NHS. We can outline concerns about some of the risks of a trade agreement facilitating greater market access for the provision of the private service situation from America, but what is the Government’s view about the limits of that? This is a genuine and legitimate question that Members speaking on this group have asked.
Before I move on to Amendment 75, in the name of my noble friend Lady Sheehan, reference was given to the potential American deal. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely correct that much of the Bill is about how the continuity agreements are in operation; he cited the existing agreements that we have and he cited CETA. On IP and ISDS, which we will come to later, there is a different approach, which we want to explore further.
One of the things that gave us a degree of reassurance —there was of course debate on CETA and the health service; I remember that very clearly—and one of the differences was that British parliamentarians were able to take part in discussions agreeing the mandate for CETA when it came to the remit and extent to which health and pharmaceuticals and intellectual property would be within the agreement. The INTA committee in the European Parliament would have seen the text of the mandate and the negotiation position, the offer from the European Union and a draft text before it was signed, and it would have seen the final text before it went for a final review. None of us in this Committee will have any opportunity to have any of the equivalent for the American deal. It is therefore right to ask probing questions, especially since the question asked—I think by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—was: what do the Americans want? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that wanting something is not getting it. However, knowing what they want, and asking the Government what their position is on whether we are offering it, is correct scrutiny.
What do the Americans want? As we have heard, on intellectual property they refer to TRIPS, and page 8 of its negotiating mandate says it wants to
“ensure that the Agreement fosters innovation and promotes access to medicines, reflecting a standard similar to that found in U.S. law”.
When it comes to procedural fairness for pharmaceutical and medical devices, it wants to:
“Seek standards to ensure that government regulatory reimbursement regimes are transparent, provide procedural fairness, are nondiscriminatory, and provide full market access for U.S. products.”
We know what the American request is. We have not seen any of the negotiating offer from the UK—any counter-offer or any draft text—and the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has not been provided with any draft text, as far as I am aware. Therefore, it is right to have in this Bill, at this time, proper questions along those lines. If the Government do not say what they mean by the NHS and the extent to which market access is open to new American providers then we must have the continuation of scrutiny.
On Amendment 75, I think my noble friend did the Committee a great service in bringing this amendment forward. My noble friend Baroness Northover has given the international context, as part of the debate on this group is around the international considerations. I am a member of the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, and we published a report in July this year which highlighted some of the truly drastic impacts of Covid-19 on Africa. We looked not just purely at the health elements but at the economic impacts. Of course, any economic impacts on the continent of Africa are also trade impacts for the United Kingdom’s relationship with those countries.
The African Trade Policy Centre of the UN Economic Commission for Africa has seen a 40% fall in African exports and GDP has effectively halved. The worst-case scenario looks like GDP falling by $120 billion, and UN ECA estimates point to Covid-19 pushing 27 million people into extreme poverty while imposing £44 billion to £46 billion in additional health costs. We know that those additional health costs will also incorporate what is likely to be a huge burden on many countries to provide vaccines and other medical support for a long-term, sustainable recovery from Covid-19.
It is right that my noble friend has raised the issue of the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration and whether the United Kingdom should activate, under that TRIPS Agreement, the ability of taking products over patents and then making them accessible. They would be accessible not just here in the United Kingdom but through a trading relationship. It is absolutely right that she has made that case. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has pointed to the Government’s capability to do that. My question to the Minister is: is it the Government’s intention to do it?
Canada did it in March. Canada Bill C-13—
“An Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19”—
authorised the Government of Canada to supply
“a patented invention to the extent necessary to respond to a public health emergency that is a matter of national concern.”
The Prime Minister indicated that Canada’s role within that is not just at home but abroad. If Canada was able to do that in March, knowing what the likely global impact would be not only on Canada but on the least-developed countries in the world, what is the UK’s position? If we have not activated that agreement, why not? If it is the Government’s intention to do it, how will they implement it?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I am sure noble Lords remember that when they first entered your Lordships’ House, they would occasionally find it hard to remember how to get from A to B. There have been times during this debate, echoing the words of my noble friend Lord Lansley, when I thought perhaps I had wandered into the wrong Committee Room by mistake, because a lot of what we have discussed—in what has been a most stimulating debate—did not seem to relate to the purpose of the Bill, which is the rollover of continuity trade agreements. Leaving that to one side, I turn first to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would mean that the Clause 2 power could not be used to implement agreements that restrict the delivery of public services through public monopolies, exclusive rights or nationalisation.
As noble Lords know, we need the powers in the Bill to ensure continuity of trading relationships with existing partners. To date—I say yet again—we have signed 20 agreements with 48 countries, accounting, I am pleased to say, for £110 billion of trade in 2018 numbers. I can confirm that none of these signed agreements have impacted our ability to deliver public services effectively. We have always protected our right to choose how we deliver public services in trade agreements and will continue to do so. No trade agreement has ever affected our ability to keep public services public and that will not change. I am happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, a complete reassurance on that. I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that we will not do anything that impugns the democratic control of these matters.
Noble Lords will observe from our record of signed agreements that the continuity programme is seeking to preserve current trading relationships, not alter the way in which our public services are designed or delivered. If this is not an unparliamentary term, I think it is a red herring to suggest otherwise.
Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to stipulate that regulations can be made using Clause 2 of the Trade Bill only if the agreement does not undermine the way in which the NHS is delivered as a public good, universal and free at the point of service.
No one listening to the debate could be in any doubt of the important place that the NHS has in the nation’s heart. I am pleased to put on record that I and the Government share the sentiment behind the noble Baroness’s amendment. We have been consistently clear about our commitment to the guiding principles of the NHS: that it is universal and free at the point of need. I tell the Committee the same thing that my colleague, the Minister for Trade Policy, told the other place, that
“the NHS is not and never will be for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or domestic.”—[Official Report, Commons, Trade Bill Committee, 25/6/20; col. 315.]
The Government will ensure that no trade agreements will affect our ability to keep public services public.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for his explanation. The Minister faces two main problems with this Bill. The first is the lack of transparency, which many noble Lords have mentioned during the debate. Until there is transparency, the Minister may be in some trouble over the issues of public services, particularly the National Health Service.
The second problem is this: I know that the Minister is relatively new at his job but it is our job to test Bills and decide what is relevant. Nothing is more relevant to most of the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate than the safety and security of the National Health Service, so my conclusion is that the Minister would perhaps be wise to discuss this issue with us between now and the next stage of the Bill. Can we meet and discuss it? Of course he reassures us and of course we know what the policy is but, with the exception of two or three speakers today, I think that we would all feel a lot safer if this measure were in the Bill.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for those comments. If she, as an experienced hand, is prepared to lend some of her experience to a new boy, I would be delighted to receive it. I cannot think of a better person to have a meeting with to enable me to do that. I meant absolutely no discourtesy at any point about the scrutiny of this Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I have also received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, in his remarks, the Minister referred twice to the mandate that the negotiators have for a future trade deal with America and stated that the mandate excludes the NHS. The language that the Government have always used is that they do not have a “mandate” for these negotiations, but “negotiating objectives”. If there is a mandate, as the Minister referred to, will he write to me about what it is? If he would prefer that to be confidential, he can write just to me, but it would also be beneficial and helpful if he wrote to the International Agreements Sub-Committee about it.
Secondly, the Minister must have been briefed before the debate on this group of amendments on both the consequences and the global implications of my noble friend Lady Sheehan’s very proper amendment, which raises these questions. My question to him—on the Government’s policy on utilising the TRIPS flexibilities that exist for medicines patents, which could then be available through our trading relationship with the least developed countries—could not have been more specific. He did not respond to it in his winding-up speech, so what is the Government’s position there? If they have not implemented legislation, as Canada did in March, why not?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I draw no distinction between our negotiating objectives, which were made public before we started the US FTA negotiations, and the mandate. When I used “mandate”, I was referring to our negotiating objectives. I apologise if that caused the noble Lord any confusion. I will write to him on his point about TRIPS.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been a very long and wide-ranging debate on amendments which are pretty simple in their effect. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported my amendment and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton in particular. The thing that has impressed me most is that that support has come from right across the political spectrum with the notable exception of the Minister, my good friend the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, took me back to the time in the 1990s when she and I were engaged in fairly ferocious debate on the potential of PFI. As she courteously reminded the Committee, it was a debate that she lost. She then went on to say that I had been scaremongering. I do not think I was scaremongering then, and I do not think I am scaremongering today with this amendment, because it is pretty modest. It seeks to ensure that services can be taken back into the public service. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, in a way it is trying to help to codify the Prime Minister’s words and commitments to keeping the public services public and being able to use the public sector in a particular way. That is the modesty of that amendment, and I am surprised that the Minister has not been able to accept it.
Surely, if he wants to reassure us—he worked very hard to, and I congratulate him on his reply—the most reassuring thing to do would be to accept our amendment to the Bill and put beyond any doubt the Prime Minister’s commitment by ensuring that we could keep services public, protect public services and bring things back into the public service where we needed to. Imagine if we were in a position now, with the Covid epidemic, where for some reason or another we had precluded us having the ability to bring back in-house test, track and trace. That would be disastrous. It is evident to all of us that test, track and trace as it is currently being operated by a number of private sector operators is not performing as well as it should. To say, ludicrously, that we could not use the public service to rectify that and improve it would surely be absurd. In a sense, that is where my argument leads: we should be able use the public service in that way.
It is a tradition, of course, and a matter of practice that in Grand Committee one should not press one’s amendment to a vote and one cannot, but this is an issue that we will have to return to when we get to Report. Although I shall read the Minister’s words of reassurance with great care, I do not think there was sufficient in them to provide the Committee or the House with the sort of reassurance and trust that we seek. This afternoon I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I think your Lordships will want to return to this on Report, and I rather hope that we do.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 15. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 15
Lord Clement-Jones
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the appropriate authority has published a report reviewing the impact of any changes brought about by that international trade agreement on the existing law of intellectual property.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to explore issues that could be damaging to intellectual property law.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in the digital era in particular, intellectual property is the lifeblood of our creative and tech industries. As the Alliance for Intellectual Property points out, the UK’s IP framework has a number of features that protect UK consumers and reward UK creators and inventors. It is quite possible that our trading partners may wish to reduce or water down these protections. To ensure that the UK’s IP framework will continue to deliver significant economic benefits, it is paramount that the UK does not concede or dilute its current IP standards as part of trade negotiations; indeed, they should be enhanced.
Ensuring that we will retain or enhance these core protections involves asking ourselves the following questions for each trade agreement. For instance, on international treaties generally, will the UK encourage all our trade partners to promote both the ratification of, and adherence to, terms of international treaties for the recognition and enforcement of copyright, trademark design and other intellectual property rights? With regard to trademarks, will we resist the introduction of proof of use?
With regard to maintaining the UK’s injunctive relief powers, in the UK rights holders can apply to the civil courts for no-fault injunctive relief. Will the UK Government ensure the preservation of their no-fault injunctive relief regime? With regard to design rights, will our negotiators ensure that the current level of protection is not weakened and that such protection is available to all UK designers, particularly regarding unregistered designs? With regard to copyright, will we make sure that the copyright term of 70 years after death is preserved? New Zealand, by contrast, has only a 50-year term.
With regard to copyright exceptions, will future free trade agreements negotiated by the UK include balanced copyright exceptions and limitations, and uphold standards such as the Berne three-step test? Will we resist any adoption of US-style fair use?
With regard to the liability of online platforms, will the UK oppose any obligations under any trade agreement, particularly with the US, that would broaden liability shields for online intermediaries or digital platforms? Will the UK ensure that its negotiators work together with the US to simplify the DMCA notice and takedown provisions and embrace a sharing of best practice within the US and UK systems? The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which I strongly support, would give this wider and greater force regarding children.
With regard to site blocking, will the Government make sure that our site-blocking provisions for pirate sites are protected and included in free trade agreements? It seems they have not been in the Japan free trade agreement. With regard to sovereignty over exhaustion rights, will we ensure that exhaustion continues to be a sovereign issue for the UK, that it is not prescribed in any trade agreement and that there is no shift to an international exhaustion regime?
With regard to the artist resale right, the ARR ensures that UK visual artists receive a modest royalty when their work is resold on the secondary art market. Will we be maintaining the ARR and pressing for it to be included in all future trade agreements? With regard to reciprocal public performance rights, will the Government press the countries that we are negotiating with to provide for full payment for all music rights holders from the use of their works or from recordings, public performance and broadcast?
With regard to source codes, will we be preventing the mandatory transfer of source codes, algorithms or encryption keys as a condition of market access? With regard to data, will we be supporting the development of AI through aligning open government data and text and data mining rules with our own? Lastly, with regard to robust enforcement measures, the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights and infringement is crucial for ensuring the integrity of future trade agreements. Will we be ensuring that effective mechanisms for enforcement are in place so that rights holders have the ability to enforce IP laws within these jurisdictions?
These are all significant aspects of IP rights that have hitherto been relied on by our exporters and service providers. The Minister assured me at Second Reading:
“As he will know, our intellectual property regime is consistently rated as one of the best in the world. One of our priorities will be to ensure that future trade agreements do not negatively impact on standards in this area and that our regime will promote trade in intellectual property.”—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. 747-78.]
But how will we know for sure in advance? Here is a classic example. The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys points out that in the UK’s negotiating objectives under “Intellectual property” on page 11, the Government commit to:
“Secure patents, trademarks, and designs provisions that: are consistent with the UK’s existing international obligations, including the European Patent Convention (EPC), to which the UK is party”.
In the corresponding US negotiating objectives, the US Government state that they will seek provisions governing intellectual property rights
“that reflect a standard of protection similar to that found in US law.”
As CIPA says:
“These UK and US objectives are not fully aligned, and a similar non-alignment may well arise in negotiations with other countries. This carries the serious risk of creating damaging uncertainty about the UK’s continuing membership of the EPC”.
Let us take two more examples. The July letter of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, about the New Zealand negotiations on intellectual property gave very little away. In his slightly fuller letter on the Japan agreement in September, he said:
“New protections for UK creative industries—British businesses can now be confident that their brands and innovations will be protected. We have gone beyond the EU on provisions that tackle online infringement of IP rights, such as film and music piracy.”
That is all well and good, but it is precious little information on such an important subject. We should know in advance through a specific report what the IP situation on each trade agreement will be so that we can be assured that the relevant protection and provisions are in place. That is what this amendment does.
I turn briefly to Amendment 16 on data flows to which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will be speaking and which I have signed. However, I do not want to steal any of her thunder. It is sufficient to say that this was not dealt with by the Minister at Second Reading. It supports the free flow of data and regulated access to data sets; ensuring that data can flow across borders is essential for digital trade, in particular for e-commerce consumption and supply chains and the use of data collection and data analytics through the cloud and otherwise.
In his September letter on the Japan agreement, the Minister said that cutting-edge digital and data provisions had been agreed. Again, how are we to judge? How are we to judge, too, the impact of any safe harbour or privacy shield provisions on our wider digital economy, especially in the light of Schrems II? Already, the Government’s consultation on a national data strategy with its promise to remove legal barriers to data use are problematic. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, that the Government Digital Service is carrying out a risk assessment. What impact will that have on our trade agreement negotiations?
All of this argues for a specific impact report prior to a trade agreement being signed in respect of data flows. I shall leave the Minister to the mercies of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 16 in my name, which requests a similar report on data. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for their support. I in turn support Amendment 15 in their names on intellectual property. This is an issue on which we have worked together over many years, and of course the Minister, my noble friend Lord Younger, is something of an expert on IP, so I am hopeful of making progress and look forward to his response.
Our amendment on data is possibly even more important than that on IP, if that is possible. Data is like the electricity on which it depends: it allows everything to work and permits communication and analysis across the world. Data flow now underlies almost every aspect of our lives from financial services to the food supply chain, from defence to the music industry. The cloud is everywhere; it has made some people very rich, and has radically changed the market valuations of the world’s companies—here I refer to my own registered interests.
However, unlike IP where there are well-established international frameworks and bodies, in data there is inadequate international alignment of standards, and that has led to disputes between the EU and the US, as I know only too well as a former Minister with responsibility for data. The combination of the GDPR and the European Court ruling on Schrems caused huge problems that we solved with the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework. Led by my right honourable friend Matt Hancock and my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde, who is now of course our esteemed Chief Whip, we put the GDPR and associated changes on to the UK statute book so that the UK would be declared equivalent to the EU and data could continue to flow after EU exit. We still await clarity on that equivalence decision, which is important to many sectors and is a matter of much concern to the EU Scrutiny Committee on which I have the pleasure of sitting.
Baroness Kidron (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 34 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Holmes of Richmond. I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly as chair of the 5Rights Foundation.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the online safety of UK children and other vulnerable users is not compromised in any UK trade deals, which is of particular relevance to the trade deal between the UK and the US for two reasons. First, the US has recently taken a determined stance in this area and inserted a requirement for recipients of US trade deals—including Mexico, Canada and Japan—to accept aspects of the broad and hugely contested US domestic law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which even the US Attorney-General William Barr describes as enabling
“platforms to absolve themselves completely of responsibility for policing their platforms”
and an IP regime that unduly benefits the mega corporations of Silicon Valley.
Secondly, such broad protection from any liability threatens to put a chill on, if not undermine entirely, existing UK law and threatens the efficacy of the much-anticipated online harms Bill. By contrast, Amendment 34 would make negotiators unable to agree to terms in any trade agreement that did not uphold the UK’s regime of child online protection.
New paragraph (a) captures laws and undertakings in current UK legislation and treaties. This would allow the Government to cite treaties such as the UNCRC, which the UK has ratified but the US has not, and also domestic legislation that has already been passed, for example protections for children from pornography in the Digital Economy Act 2017.
New paragraph (b) specifically refers to the data protections brought into law on 2 September in the form of the age-appropriate design code, an initiative introduced and won in the House of Lords by a similar all-party grouping. It is already having a profound impact on the safety and privacy of children online around the world. New paragraph (b) also ensures that the Data Protection Act 2018 is protected more generally, since the code is built on the broader provisions of the DPA.
New paragraph (c) would allow the Secretary of State to determine that domestic legislation which protects children online can be subject to a carve-out in trade agreements. We cannot directly protect a Bill that is yet to be brought forward but, if this amendment were adopted, the advances promised by the online harms Bill, such as a duty of care tackling the spread of child sexual abuse material, and the introduction of minimum standards, could all be upheld.
Finally, the amendment defines children as persons under 18. This is crucial, since the US domestic consumer law, COPPA, has created a de facto age of adulthood online of 13, an age of maturity that flies in the face of our law, our culture and all known understanding of childhood development.
Turning to the amendment’s relevance to the Bill, I have listened carefully to the Minister, who is at pains to point out that the powers of the Bill are limited to continuity agreements. However, much has been repeatedly said about the lack of parliamentary oversight of the UK’s values as a new trading nation. The Committee can only judge the Government’s priorities on what is in front of it, and I am hopeful that their long-term commitment to making the UK the safest place for a child to be online will be one such priority.
I am not an expert in trade, but I have consulted widely with colleagues and legal experts who are. Their collective confusion would suggest that it remains unclear to what extent agreements between the EU and the US in relation to data flow, data protection and liability services might be considered in scope under language about mutual recognition agreements, which we have yet to hear much about. The Library’s briefing on the Bill points to the fact that:
“The bill does not specify that the new agreement between the UK and a partner country must replicate or be similar to the original EU agreement.”
Were the EU-US agreements to bring these into scope, this leaves a great danger that the safety of UK children will be undermined through the mechanism of a Trade Bill with no oversight or challenge. When the Minister responds, I would appreciate some clarity that this is not the case.
I want to be clear about what it would mean if we sign away the UK’s right to protect children online. The tech sector would be able to continue to regulate itself, meaning more young people having their data harvested and used to recommend dangerous self-harm and suicide content. More games with no breaks or save buttons would trap children in twilight worlds of gaming. More children would be suggested as potential friends to strange adults through risky design features, and more would face the images of their horrific sexual abuse being circulated online forever. These are just some of the harms that the code and the upcoming online harms Bill are designed to end. All would be at risk if the tech companies get their way—as they are furiously lobbying to do—through the “back door” of a Trade Bill. This is not a risk we need to take.
I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that amendments of this nature hamper the free hand of trade negotiators and, simultaneously, give sight to trade partners of the UK’s red lines. I hope he will forgive me for saying that that is indeed my intention.
I will finish by hijacking a comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, during Tuesday’s Committee to point out that it is not only those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench who want their anxieties to be answered in the Bill. Online harms are an issue that causes anxiety to Members of all parties in both Houses and to vast swathes of the public. There was undoubtedly a majority in the country for releasing the UK from its European trade partners, which forms the context for the Bill, but there is a far greater majority in the country for regulating technology companies. A survey undertaken last year by 5Rights showed that 90% of parents wanted internet companies to be required to follow rules to protect children online, and 67% of those wanted them to be enforced by an independent regulator or the Government.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, has sought to reassure me on Zoom and by letter that the Government will try to maintain their ability to protect users from emerging online harms in a UK-US trade agreement, and I very much welcome his personal commitment to child online safety. However, given the importance of the issue, I ask the Government to put that reassurance in the Bill. It is not scaremongering. The US, at the behest of the richest and most powerful companies in the world, has already inserted Section 230 into each of its recent trade agreements. As the UK becomes the author of its own priorities in the world, there must be no greater priority than putting beyond doubt that it will not trade away the safety and security of its children.
Therefore I ask the Minister whether he can persuade the Government to adopt the substance of the proposed amendment and, in doing so, categorically take our kids off the table.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, next to speak are the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, but they are not present and are not logged on to Zoom. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 15 and 16 speak for themselves, but I just want to take a moment to say how glad I am that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has brought her amendment on safeguarding. The significance and importance of this cannot be overemphasised, and I hope that she will find support from across the House.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh. No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, but I particularly want to speak to Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. This issue is particularly dear to my heart. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the Minister will say that this does not fall within the remit of the Trade Bill, which simply deals with continuity agreements, but by that very fact this feature to do with online child safety is of vital importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has comprehensively addressed this amendment. She has clearly said that its purpose is to ensure that the online safety of children and other vulnerable users is not compromised as a direct consequence of clauses that appear in free trade agreements.
As we are already aware, the UK does not have a highly developed system of negotiation. As the Bill stands there is no parliamentary oversight, meaning that the terms of the agreements are exclusively in the hands of the negotiators and the Government of the day. This is of particular concern in the area of online protection, for two reasons. First, this is an area on which the US has already taken a determined stance and inserted a requirement for recipients of US trade deals to accept aspects of a broad and hugely contested US domestic law unduly benefiting the mega corporations of Silicon Valley in the USA. Secondly, such a broad lack of liability threatens to undermine or put a chill on the existing UK law and the much-anticipated online harms Bill, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has withdrawn, so I call again the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I apologise because I did not unmute myself, but I think that Lady Sheikh has managed to unmute me.
I support Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. While the internet is a space for innovation, expression and communication, it can also be damaging. As our digital world develops and innovates, so do the risks of online harm. Children are increasingly exposed to inappropriate content, grooming, harassment, malicious behaviour, misinformation and breaches of privacy. Two-thirds of vulnerable children and young people, supported by Barnardo’s sexual exploitation service, were groomed online before meeting their abuser in person.
Social media companies have failed to prioritise children’s safety. Last year, the NSPCC found that more than 70% of reported grooming took place on the main social media networks—Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Snapchat. The global platforms are not taking enough responsibility for content on their sites, or being held accountable. More needs to be done to verify user identities, monitor harmful content and handle reports of abuse effectively. Harmful content and activities have a damaging effect on children’s mental and physical well-being and can lead to exploitation, trafficking, substance abuse and radicalisation. Those impacts are rarely short term; they stay with the children for the rest of their lives.
The UK is committed to being the safest place in the world to be online, and we must do more. We need better safeguards, and I urge the Government to prioritise the online harms Bill, which will be world leading in safety requirements and holding the industry accountable. As we leave the European Union and continue to develop our place in the digital world, we must ensure that our standards and goals are not jeopardised. We recently signed a trade deal with Japan; this historic agreement will advance digital standards through data provisions that maintain and improve digital safety. This year, Japan was ranked first in the child online safety index for low cyber risks. Those risks refer to bullying, misuse of technology, the detrimental effect of gaming and social media, and exposure to violent and sexual content.
In the UK-Japan trade deal, the rights and protection of children online have not been undermined, as Japan shares a similar ambition to ours for legislative standards. But what will happen when we look to sign with other countries that do not have the same level of protection? Unlike Japan, the United States came 22nd out of 30 countries in the child online safety index for cyber risks.
Although this is only one aspect of the index, it shows that children are particularly at risk online in the United States. We cannot expose our children to the same abuse. The new trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada has created a legal shield for tech companies, whereby the service providers are not held liable for content on their platforms or the harm it may cause to users. This fails to hold social media companies to account, and is not an effective safeguard for children.
Supporting the amendment would mean that our existing protections could not be traded away, and would ensure that we could fulfil our duty of care to children. If we do not support the amendment, we risk undermining our commitment to create a safer world online for the protection of children. Furthermore, if we do not do this, we could cause a situation in which social media giants are not transparent in how they deal with abuse online, and may be less accountable.
The pandemic has reinforced the importance of the digital world in our lives. When we return to normality, we must have better safeguards. We should not just maintain our existing safeguards; we should endeavour to strengthen them. The amendment would mean at least that our existing laws, and therefore the rights of our children, were protected. I hope that it will be accepted.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in responding to the last group of amendments, the Minster, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, expressed surprise at the broad nature of the debate. I would say to him, perhaps facetiously, “Welcome to the House of Lords”. I fear that this group may tempt his colleague, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, to make a similar observation, but I ask that he does not. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said at the end of the previous debate, the nature of these debates highlights serious concerns that noble Lords have, and the Government should take them seriously, even when they are not necessarily on the face of the Bill.
This is a very good example of that. I shall not speak in detail about Amendment 34, because the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made a very powerful speech. I am also glad that Lady Sheikh managed to get the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, online, because he made a very strident contribution on something that is extremely important.
Similarly, I am not going to talk much about intellectual property. On this issue I bend the knee to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones—and, frankly, so should Her Majesty’s Government. I suggest that the Minister should give my noble friend’s words, and particularly his questions, special attention, because they are serious and important issues that face a lot of companies in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke strongly on data flow. At the risk of provoking the ire of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, I have to say that I agree with her. Her issue is absolutely fundamental—and I shall expand a bit on that.
I have previously quoted the “exuberant” Secretary of State, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, describes her. Here is another quote, from a speech she made to the WTO almost exactly a year ago:
“We believe it is high time to reform digital trade rules so that they are fit for the 21st century, reducing restrictions to market access to support e-commerce and ensure the free flow of data across borders.”
Yet despite this enthusiasm or exuberance, I sense that there are problems when it comes to squaring the conflicting pressures that are mounting around the free flow of data across borders. Indeed, when the Minister kindly invited myself and others to a facilitated discussion on the progress of the US-UK trade deal, I was surprised and shocked by the insouciant response to my question on data adequacy and the issue of reconciling US and EU data rules. It was a very short answer, and to us, it did not show a full understanding of the challenge.
However, it is not just about GDPR. I will talk in a little detail about Schrems II, which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones raised, because it is an important cloud hanging over what we seek to achieve. To remind your Lordships, in that ruling the European Court of Justice, the highest court of the EU, found on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US data protection shield. To explain, it wrote in its press release that
“the requirements of US national security, public interest and law enforcement have primacy, thus condoning interference with the fundamental rights of persons whose data are transferred to that third country.”
It added that
“mechanisms in the EU-US Privacy Shield ostensibly intended to mitigate this interference are not up the required legal standard of ‘essential equivalence’ with EU law.”
Broadly, the US’s prioritization of digital surveillance in the view of the court collides directly with European fundamental rights.
That is a sobering ruling, which spells danger for UK trade aspirations and sets some alarm bells ringing regarding the UK’s surveillance regime. Her Majesty’s Government need to reflect on this very seriously when talking up the potential for a UK-US trade deal that includes data, and they should contrast that stark ruling with the freebooting statement from the Secretary of State with which I opened. By the way, I assume that Her Majesty’s Government are probably having to reflect on this ruling in their efforts to tie down data adequacy with the EU when the transition period runs out. Perhaps the Minister can use this opportunity to update us on progress with these discussions with the EU.
This is not a trivial issue, and we need to demonstrate in this country that we take it seriously. As a starting point, accepting Amendments 15, 16 and 34 would be a very good idea.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will be relatively brief because much of what I want to say has been covered by the other speakers, not that I could ever have competed with the tour d’horizon that was the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the expertise also shown by the former Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. It was also a bit of a tour de force, since it touched on every issue there is to touch on in terms of intellectual property. Indeed, if the noble Lords were minded to follow that up with amendments to back up some of the points they were making, the glacial progress we are making so far on the Bill would turn into a complete and utter standstill. So much is going on here, and so many things need to be addressed, that I am almost tempted to go into cahoots with them to try to see whether we can pick them out. Perhaps I will resist that one.
Both Amendments 15 and 16, taken together or separately, are helpful in the sense that, as others have said, they pick up some of the rather considerable concerns that we are all hearing from the IP sector about the future, about what is going to happen to personal data flows and, indeed, about what is going to happen to our IP industry, which is so vital to the UK economy and our cultural industries. They seem to be very sensible information-gathering amendments that do not impose any great burden on the Government, and they would help to inform the situation as we reach the turning points at the end of this year. I hope that they commend themselves at least in outline to the Minister.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will first speak to Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I thank them for their engagement on the Bill and for their wider work over many years on the vital issue of intellectual property. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, this debate is rather reminiscent of six years ago when I was somewhat steeped in intellectual property in the old BIS department. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was my opposite number, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was my successor. This could therefore, perhaps, be described as a continuity debate on a continuity Bill.
These amendments would require the Government to publish reports detailing the impact of a trade agreement on intellectual property and data flows before they could make implementing regulations under Clause 2. I am proud to say the UK’s IP regime is consistently rated as one of the best in the world. That is a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Now that we have left the EU, in line with our WTO commitments, the Government will continue to maintain our high level of protections of intellectual property. Let me say that at the outset. We recognise that an effective intellectual property system needs to strike a balance between supporting the UK’s world- class technology sectors to research and innovate and reflecting wider public interests. This balance will be reflected in our approach to intellectual property when striking new free trade agreements.
None of the 20 continuity agreements we have signed has weakened IP protections in any way, replicating as they do the provisions in the underlying EU agreements. They do not introduce new or diluted provisions in the fields of IP, data flows or any other areas. As a result, we heard positive endorsements of the Bill during Committee in the other place from service-oriented industries including the Advertising Association, the Institute of Directors and EY.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, invited me to take the questions that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I say at the outset that I should and do take his questions seriously. One of the points that he raised was: will the Government include a wide range of specified provisions on IP in the trade agreements? Given that this is a continuity Bill, I suggest to him that the answers to his question can be found in the status quo. He mentioned negotiations on IP with the USA and New Zealand, which are not included in the scope of the Bill. However, DIT Ministers hold regular briefings with Peers on the progress of negotiations; I have attended at least two, and I encourage him to join up next time round.
Further to this, the noble Lord asked about the question of IP in our negotiating objectives in the US agreement. If he would like more information on our approach to IP in the negotiations with the USA, he can consult our negotiation objectives. Giving him a bit more detail, I assure him that, first, we will secure copyright provisions that support UK creative industries through an effective and balanced global framework. We will project UK brands while keeping the market open for competition, and we will promote transparent and efficient administration and enforcement of IP rights.
We have already mentioned the parliamentary reports we publish alongside signed agreements explaining our approach to delivering continuity. We believe that publishing additional reports alongside these would slow down the process of concluding agreements and increase the bureaucracy involved. In fact, taken cumulatively, all of the amendments tabled to the Bill by your Lordships would compel the Government to publish no less than 11 new reports alongside every single continuity agreement we sign. I believe that this would not be a good use of time or resources, and I hope the Committee agrees with that.
The UK has long been, and remains, a strong supporter of an open, rules-based international trading system. The WTO’s TRIPS—which was referred to in the debate on the last group—sets out the minimum standards for trade in intellectual property across all WTO member nations. As the UK updates the terms of its WTO membership, we will be making sure that we remain compliant with the TRIPS agreement and, as part of future trade deals, the UK will look to refer to—and improve on—the standards set out in international agreements.
With regard to future FTAs—although they are not included in the scope of this Bill—we support ambitious and liberal provisions that support international cross-border data flows while understanding the importance of ensuring that personal data protections are not put at risk. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that uninterrupted data flows can continue between the UK, the EU and other countries around the world. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the free flow of data, including personal data, is crucial to international co-operation in the modern world, but it must be underpinned by high data protection standards. We are equally committed to ensuring high standards of data protection and privacy after the end of the transition period.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned in his remarks the 2020 Schrems II judgment, which I will say a few words about to help him with some more information. As I said earlier, the UK Government are committed to ensuring high data protection standards and supporting UK organisations and businesses is very important. The UK Government are reviewing the details of the judgment in the case referred to earlier—Schrems II— and considering its impact on data transfers for UK organisations.
As he may know, the UK Government intervened in the case, arguing in support of standard contractual clauses—so-called SCCs—and are pleased that the court has upheld this important mechanism for transferring data internationally. Therefore, the UK may independently take steps to address issues arising from the judgment after the transition period. The Government are working with the Information Commissioner’s Office to ensure that updated guidance on international data transfers will be available as soon as possible. The Government will continue to work with the commissioner’s office and international counterparts to address the impacts of this particular judgment.
The Government have been clear that FTAs do not provide a legal basis for the cross-border transfer of personal data. I make it clear that this will be controlled by our domestic data protection legislation. Moving forward, as we develop our trading relationships with other countries, our approach must be transparent and inclusive. We are working closely with a wide range of stakeholders to develop our priorities around trade and intellectual property, including the devolved Administrations, industry and consumers. Getting the right outcome for UK inventors, creators and consumers will be key. Given that we are seeking to replicate commitments in existing EU trade agreements, I do not believe that producing further reports, in addition to those we already publish, alongside each signed agreement is necessary or proportionate.
I now turn to an important part of this debate. Amendment 34 is intended to prevent the Clause 2 power being used to implement continuity agreements which do not comply with existing domestic and international obligations regarding the important subject of the protection of children and other vulnerable user groups using the internet. We heard passionate speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I want to be clear, perhaps echoing the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that this Government are, and must be, committed to making the UK the safest place in the world to be online and for children to be online. We carefully consider any interaction between trade policy and online harms policy in trade agreements. I can confirm that we stand by our online harm commitments, and nothing agreed as part of any trade deal will affect that.
In 2019, as the noble Baroness and others will know, the DCMS published the online harms White Paper, with the initial government response in February this year, setting out the direction of travel. The DCMS will publish a full government response to the White Paper consultation later this year. This will include more detailed proposals on online harms regulation and will be released alongside interim voluntary codes on tackling online terrorist and child sexual exploitation, as well as abuse content and activity. The DCMS will follow the full government response with legislation, which is currently being prepared and will be ready early next year.
It should come as no surprise that our continuity programme is consistent with existing international obligations, as it seeks to replicate existing EU agreements, which are themselves fully compliant with such obligations. By transitioning these agreements, we are reaffirming the UK’s commitment to international obligations on protecting young and vulnerable internet users, which is so important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked whether the agreement between the EU and the US on data services should be considered in the scope of the Bill and be able to be rolled over. The scope of the Bill applies to either FTAs or agreements that relate mainly to trade between a partner country and the EU signed before the UK left. She will know that we are in negotiations with the US on an FTA, as I mentioned earlier, and we will bring forward separate legislation on that if required. I hope that that gives her enough reassurance at this stage.
Our continuity agreements will safeguard, not undermine, our domestic protections and international commitments regarding online protection of young and vulnerable internet users. In the light of those reassurances covering all the amendments, I hope that Amendment 15 will be withdrawn and that noble Lords will not press Amendments 16 and 34.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I have had two requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Stevenson. I now call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response on Schrems II, which was very helpful. I would like just one further detail. Can he confirm that the advice, when it comes, could concern where databases are domiciled? If so, the advice needs to be made available earlier rather than later so that companies are able to comply. Therefore, can he give some indication of the timetable for when business might get some guidelines so that they can work out their new data management policy?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Absolutely. That is a very fair question from the noble Lord. As he will expect, I do not have a timeline, so the best thing for me to do is to look at his question and write to him, giving whatever information we have from the department, together with any extra information that might be helpful to him.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I have also had a request from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to speak after the Minister, but I now call the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I apologise if I did not make myself very clear when I was speaking earlier, but the Minister did not seem to answer my point. If we are talking about the standards set for any rollover agreements covered by this legislation and—as we hope to persuade the Government—the future free trade agreements that are still to be negotiated with other countries, what standards of child protection can the Government assert they will use if legislation that is going to contain that has not yet been put into primary legislation? For example, he mentioned the commitment in a White Paper, and presumably there will have been legislation, on an issue that deals with child harm. It deals specifically with the question of whether or not the future basis under which this would be done is a duty of care. These are quite important and quite difficult concepts. If they are not there they do not give us a standard. If they are delayed, or in some way changed as they go through the parliamentary process, they may not eventuate into a situation which can be used. My question remains: is this not an issue where it would be helpful to the Government to have something very clear on the face of the Bill that dealt with that particular issue of child harm, which as we have heard, is so important to the people of this country?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I believe I should respond to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, if I may. The noble Lord makes a very fair point. It is fair to say that this is, just by dint of the coincidence of timing, tied up with all the work we are doing on the online harms White Paper. He will know that more detailed proposals on the regulations will be released alongside the interim voluntary codes. We need to look at this in tandem with what we are doing with free trade agreements. That is the answer I can give to him at the moment. Again, I will write to him with more details on this because it is a very important subject.
Baroness Kidron (CB) [V]
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for asking half of my question, but, as the Minister just said, it is tied up with online harms, we are tied up with trade—I think that is our collective anxiety, if you like. At what point do these things start impacting on each other in ways that are negative to children? The reason for having a standard going in is to make sure that children are not victims of what happens over the next months and so on. I want to make that point.
I have another question, if the Minister would be kind enough to answer. He mentioned, a couple of times, high standards of data protection, but does he mean the standards that we negotiated so long and so heavily during the passage of the DPA 2018? Are those the standards, and will those remain the standards, or are we talking about some other general high standards of data protection?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
To answer the second question from the noble Baroness, we could well be. I think I have said, in other respects, when we do finally leave the EU after the transition period, because we will have left the EU it will be up to us to look at our standards and raise them if we think that is right. On the way forward on online harms, which is very close to the heart of the noble Baroness, I reassure her that there is a lot of cross-departmental work going on here. Although this is DCMS-led, I reassure her, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Grimstone, that the DIT and other departments are working together on the way forward, bearing in mind the White Paper.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. It was useful to be reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, of his antecedents. I remember many happy hours discussing copyright exceptions—I think it was from 2013 onwards —and I am sure it was one of the Minister’s favourite jobs at the time, with all the minutiae of intellectual property involved.
This has been a relatively short but, I hope, well-argued debate and I am grateful to those who supported not only my Amendment 15 but Amendments 16 and 34, which I strongly support as well. If we were looking for an order of priority, Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is the absolute touchstone for this debate. She referred to putting an intentional red line in the negotiations, a very powerful phrase. The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, said that children’s safety should not be traded away again, which really emphasises the importance of this. The point was made that we do not yet have all the legislation we need in this area, therefore any negotiations need to take account of future legislation. It is a really tricky one. The Minister has a wonderful bedside manner and used the word “reassure” on a number of occasions, but this is a really difficult and important area. Personally, I am not 100% reassured and if the noble Baroness wanted to bring her amendment back on Report, many of us would give her a great deal of support.
Turning to data, I agree with my noble friend Lord Fox: the one thing giving business sleepless nights is the whole issue of data adequacy and data flows. Post Schrems, that is a really difficult area. The Minister mentioned it and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, answered a Written Question from me recently about the taskforce. It is urgent that we should have those guidelines in place. It is not adequate that people should simply have to rely on standard contractual clauses, especially for small business, as it will imply that they have to take a great deal of legal advice. I should say that since I no longer charge by the hour, I have no direct personal interest in that. However, it is a serious area and I hope it is being taken on board at speed.
On the IP front, there was a kind of multiple-choice questionnaire which I hope the Minister will use in future negotiations to tick or cross, as the case may be. The big problem is that this all demonstrates the feeling that the scrutiny process is inadequate, whether on continuity agreements or new agreements. The Minister says that the amendments would require another 11 reports, or whatever the tally would be, but that demonstrates a theme that has run through Second Reading and Committee so far: that the level of scrutiny we are being given over free-trade agreements is inadequate. Whether on things such as IP and data, which are crucial to business, or things which have a greater moral and societal foundation, as in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, this is about the opportunity for scrutiny not being adequate at this point.
I will obviously withdraw the amendment, as we are in Grand Committee, but we are, in a sense, still back with the feeling that we have to go much further on scrutiny. If that involves 11 reports, so be it: these are important agreements for our future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 17. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 17
Lord Hendy
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the international trade agreement does not contain any form of investor-state dispute settlement mechanism applicable to any part of the United Kingdom in relation to a claim brought by a foreign investor against a United Kingdom public authority except to the extent that—(a) the laws of the United Kingdom administered in the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom so provide, and(b) a person (whether or not an investor) domiciled in the United Kingdom has equal protection under those laws and equal access to redress for any such claim in those courts and tribunals.( ) In this section “public authority” includes the Crown, Parliament, an appropriate authority as defined in section 4(1), a local authority, and any person who has functions which include functions of a public nature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would preclude the subjection of acts and decisions of UK public bodies to claims for compensation by foreign investors under ISDS or other multilateral investment courts or tribunals. It would not preclude a foreign investor relying on UK domestic law or the UK’s judicial system.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
I am in your hands, Chair. I see what the time is, and my speech to move this amendment will not be as short as the interventions I made earlier in our discussions of the Bill. I cannot guarantee that I will finish by 7.30 pm, I am afraid. Do you wish me to proceed? Should I break in the middle of my speech? How should I conduct it?
Motion to Adjourn
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the hybrid sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Freeman
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from 1 October, of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his very much-valued service to the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ replies are also brief.
Hospitals and Nursing Homes: Do Not Resuscitate Notices
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Browning
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use of Do Not Resuscitate notices in hospitals and nursing homes since March.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the department is very clear that the blanket use of DNACPR and DNR is unacceptable. An agreement to a DNACPR is an individual decision and should involve the person concerned or, where the person lacks capacity, their family, carer, guardian or any other legally recognised advocate. I can inform the House that the Minister for Patient Safety and Mental Health will be writing to the Care Quality Commission requesting that it investigates and reports on DNACPR issues.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
I am grateful to my noble friend and am aware of the letters written in respect of people with learning disabilities and autism during the first phase of the Covid-19 outbreak. However, with the second wave looking as though it is on its way, my noble friend will be aware that there is still concern from charities such as Mencap and the National Autistic Society, not least because of the attitude in some areas that people who have social care support needs are rather lesser human beings than the rest of us. How will the Care Quality Commission carry out this assessment as the second wave increases?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is completely unacceptable for any group of people to have blanket DNACPR provisions apply to them. The adult social care winter plan published on 18 September reiterates that and makes the position crystal clear. The General Medical Council is providing additional support and guidance to clinicians on how to meet the needs of patients and relatives, and the Resuscitation Council UK is creating a large amount of resources to provide training. The CQC is monitoring the situation extremely carefully.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the distressing circumstances of the pandemic have once again highlighted the difficult and sometimes controversial issues about end-of-life treatment in general and individual choices. Will the Government set up a long-proposed review to examine all these issues, particularly to improve real patient choice?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right. The Covid epidemic has shone a spotlight on the awful arrangements around end of life at a time when contagious disease presents a threat to all those present in a nursing home or hospital. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all those who have lived through such an experience or will face one in the near future. I note the noble Baroness’s call for a review. There is no current plan for one but I will carry the idea back to the department.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I sympathise with the medical profession engaged in saving lives at all costs. However, many people will have spent a great deal of time in thought and consultation with relatives before deciding not to be resuscitated, should they become desperately ill, especially with Covid, with possible permanent physical or mental impairment. It is inconceivable that their wishes should be overturned by medical professionals who do not know or understand their background. What are the Government doing to ensure that that does not happen?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Baroness’s sentiments—so does the department and so do the Government. We have noted what happened during the Covid epidemic. The CQC is investigating potential lapses at that time. We have reinforced guidance in the winter plan and the CQC continues to review the situation. New training and guidance provisions are being put in place. We take the situation extremely seriously and are putting in the procedures and investment necessary to ensure the right outcome.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
What training is being given to physicians and healthcare workers for when they discuss DNR with patients and next of kin?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The department is aware of the Queen’s Nursing Institute report on training and, although the majority of responses were positive, it raised questions about the training of, in particular, care home staff on the instruction to change resuscitation orders for patients without discussion. We are looking at that report very carefully. We cannot comment on individual cases but the report raises important questions. In the meantime, the General Medical Council is providing additional support and guidance to clinicians and the Resuscitation Council is creating a large range of resources for clinicians to help guide them and provide training.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
I am pleased that the Minister has recognised that, although DNR is a medical decision and not something that requires a patient’s consent, not consulting with the patient and their family is an unlawful breach of human rights. We should be grateful that the scandal was exposed by Turning Point and other charities during the pandemic. Does the Minister have plans to review the DNR decisions that were made during the pandemic and does he know, or perhaps he can find out, how many DNRs were issued in excess of what one might have expected during the pandemic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, NHSE&I is currently engaged with stakeholders, including people with lived experience, to develop better information for patients and to understand whether procedures need to be changed. I reassure the noble Baroness that DNRs are not issued, they are agreed with families and relevant loved ones. On no account should DNRs be unilaterally issued. They are for a joint decision; that kind of blanket application is something that we are extremely concerned about and seeking to avoid.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, when someone who has a DNACPR is well enough to leave hospital, can the Minister assure me that the notice will be reviewed as a matter of course after consultation with the patient and their carers?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a fair point. Of course, someone who walks healthy from a hospital need not have such a notice left on their clinical records. I will admit that I do not know the precise arrangements for how that is conducted but I will be happy to write to the noble Baroness and explain the procedure.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has already said that he quite understands that there will be people, particularly the elderly, who do not wish to be resuscitated. One easy way of ensuring that resuscitation does not happen is for people to have a living will. Will the Minister undertake to try to encourage GPs to ensure that all their patients understand this and that they have the potential to have a living will?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the benefits of living wills are enormous, both for those entering the last stages of their life and their loved ones. It is something that we are keen to encourage. I do not know the precise arrangements for how GPs play a role in that, but I will be glad to write to the noble Baroness and explain what provisions are in place for encouraging the use of living wills.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend for his balanced comments on this extremely fraught situation—I think everything has just about been said. Every life is, of course, to be valued but many of us as we get older—dare I say, we are quite a lot older in this House than the average population—will be looking at whether we want a do not resuscitate order in our living will. That is why I commend the idea from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, of spreading this information around.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend puts it all very well. It is my birthday today, so I am feeling a little bit older and thoughtful on these subjects. On a serious point, living wills have enormous benefits and give peace of mind to those who enter nursing homes and hospitals, and their loved ones. We will look carefully at this important point and I will share my correspondence with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, with my noble friend.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
Happy birthday to the Minister. Given the dangers of the shortcut abbreviation of DNR, which can result in essential care decreasing, has the Department of Health considered adopting NHS Wales’s concept of a natural, anticipated and accepted death—NAAD? In five years, this has had no problems reported and gently and sensitively leads to DNACPR conversations with patients and those who love them.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the testimony of the noble Baroness. We often keep track of Wales’s use of innovative health measures and, while I am not aware of this concept in particular, I will be glad to take the advice back to the department, recommend it and return to the noble Baroness with a response on how we are going to take it forward.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed—my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
Crime: Emergency Services Staff
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce a new sentencing tariff for those who commit a crime and who kill a member of the emergency services as a result.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in addition to the sentencing reforms we announced in our White Paper, the Government are currently considering options for strengthening the law in relation to those who kill emergency workers while engaged in unlawful activity. This consideration will include proposals made by the family of PC Andrew Harper, who we remain in close discussion with.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. I declare my interest as a former police officer with the Thames Valley Police, the same force that the late PC Andrew Harper so gallantly served. I commend PC Harper’s widow, Lissie, for her courageous campaigning on this issue. Like many members of the emergency services, I suffered serious injury while on duty and saw colleagues nearly killed in the line of duty. Such incidents should never be regarded as an occupational hazard for those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public. Does my noble friend the Minister agreed that, whatever the legal complexity, we can, and should, do more to increase the deterrent against criminals causing harm to our emergency services?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank my noble friend for sharing his personal experience of the dangers faced by members of our emergency services. Those are why in 2018 we introduced the new aggravated offences of assaulting emergency workers and are now revisiting the maximum penalties for them. We are all aware that in some cases, such assaults have led to much more tragic circumstances, in which some emergency workers have died in the line of duty. That is why it is right that we also consider whether a change in sentencing or to the criminal law is required where an emergency worker is killed by another person in the course of unlawful activity. I am sure that all noble Lords join me in paying tribute and sending our sincere condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of Matthew Ratana, who was fatally shot on 25 September while on duty at the Croydon custody suite.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, in addressing and ensuring better public protection for our communities so that residents feel safe, what extra measures are the Government introducing inside and outside prison to improve ways of dealing with terrorism offenders? Will we see a drive to recruit more counterterrorism specialist probation officers?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Public protection is the Government’s number one priority. We have already made changes to the law regarding the sentencing and release of terrorist offenders. As part of the proposal in the sentencing White Paper that we talked about last week, the Government intend to introduce a new power to prevent automatic early release for a wider range of offenders who are a significant public protection concern. Earlier this year the Government also announced that they will double the number of specialist probation officers who focus on terrorist prisoners. The Government also intend to create a new counterterrorism assessment and intervention centre.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is absolutely right that we should feel horrified by some crimes, and I certainly endorse the good wishes sent by the Minister. However, we must not get into the situation that, for every type of offence, there is a specific sentencing statutory provision. It makes the task of judges almost impossible if they constantly have to compare statutory penalties for one offence with another which are marginally different in effect.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, which is why we are taking our time in considering this complex issue of whether there should be any changes to sentencing or to criminal law. We will work through this in a timely manner, consulting with the judiciary all the way.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, it is quite right that there should be proper consultation on this, as the Minister says. However, we should look at the sentencing tariff not only for those who kill but for those who cause serious, life-changing injuries to emergency workers. Two years ago, in a drunken spree, Hayden Brown drove into the patrol car carrying PC Tom Dorman—now Sergeant Tom Dorman—and a colleague. As was said in court, the two officers were thrown into the air “like ragdolls”, and Sergeant Dorman lost his leg as a result. Brown has now been released from prison after serving 10 months, while Sergeant Dorman must live with the consequences of that criminality for the rest of his life. How does that square with the Government’s rhetoric of protecting the protectors?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord is correct. The White Paper is looking at serious assaults very seriously. That is why we are changing the time served of sentences of over seven years from the current 50% to two-thirds. In the White Paper, we are also looking at changing it from 50% to two-thirds for sentences of four to seven years. All these things will ensure that the public have confidence in the judicial system.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, this is an important issue. We are going very slowly on it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am the son of a policeman and spent my first five years living in a police station in Llangollen. The November 2018 guidelines for an unlawful act of manslaughter were arrived at after four years of consideration and consultation with 45 bodies, including the council of Her Majesty’s judges, the criminal Bar, the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association, the Ministry of Justice, the Justice Committee, the unions, the Howard League for Penal Reform, leading academics, the royal medical colleges and many others. The guidelines were widely accepted and came into effect less than two years ago. Why is the Ministry of Justice proposing to revisit this issue so soon?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is for public confidence. We consulted over the summer and there was a wide agreement that the tariffs should go to two years rather than the 12 months.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I associate this side of the House with the sympathy expressed to the families of Sergeant Ratana and Police Constable Andrew Harper. As we have heard from many of the questions asked, serious assault, not-so-serious assault, murder or manslaughter of any emergency worker should be attended by higher sentences. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be a consultation about differential sentencing for those sorts of crimes, and that it will be published very shortly?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am very sorry that I cannot give an assurance on when it will be published but, as with all these things, there will be consultation, and it will be on everything from minor and major assault to murder and manslaughter.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the analysis of Andy Symonds, chair of Norfolk Police Federation? He said that it was essential that courts, as well as the Government, played a part in stopping violent offenders, and that there was a need for predictable, tough sentences for offenders who attack police officers. He says that this has not happened, and that it is one of the main drivers of the rising numbers of assaults that we are seeing year on year. Putting on a uniform for public service always carries a risk. We in Parliament and the courts should respond to that risk by unambiguously making clear to those who assault the uniformed services that they will face the most severe penalties.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. Oh, I am sorry, it is the Minister.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Sentencing is ultimately a matter for the independent courts, which is why in 2018 we introduced the new aggravated offence of assaulting emergency workers. As I said, we are looking at increasing the 12 months to a two-year maximum penalty. While sentencing is for judges in individual cases, it is for the Government to give courts the full range of powers to deal effectively with anybody who attacks any policeman or emergency worker.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. As I said, we did go on rather too long in the supplementary questions and answers, and I apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, whom I tried to get in rather prematurely.
Net Zero Review
Baroness Hayman
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Net Zero Review will take into account co-benefits, including those relating to (1) improved health, (2) productivity, and (3) employment, in calculating the costs and investments needed to reach net zero emissions.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the net-zero review will cover how the transition to net zero will be funded and assess options for where the costs will fall. This involves analysing the range of options for how households, businesses and the taxpayer could contribute to the costs of transition, as well as maximising opportunities for economic growth as we transition to a green economy. We will need to evaluate the trade-offs between costs, competitiveness, effects on consumers and impacts on taxpayers.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and for her recognition that costs are not the only issue to be taken into account. The Covid crisis demonstrates to us every day the need to assess the effects of individual policies in the round, not simply against a single metric. So does the Minister agree that the magnitude of the threats from unrestrained climate change means that when we assess the cost of measures to meet our net-zero target, we need also to take into account the benefits to health and employment, and to sustainable economic recovery? Could we not set an example of good practice in overall impact assessment of climate measures as part of our preparations for COP 26 next year?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that we need to look at these issues in the round. She referred to the impact of the Covid crisis, and to our aims for a green recovery. The Government have put huge emphasis on a green recovery, because not only will that help us meet our net-zero target in the longer term, but it has been shown that, in the shorter term, such policies bring extra economic benefit in their own right—and that is the exact approach the Government are taking.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, what discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations to determine what contribution the different jurisdictions will commit to in order to achieve the overall UK target for climate measures? Perhaps the Minister could provide me with an answer in relation to that.
Baroness Penn (Con)
There are ongoing discussions with all the devolved Administrations on the issue of climate change, and I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness with further details of those discussions.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my interests in the register, and I congratulate the Government on putting the green economy at the forefront of the work that we are doing. However, will my noble friend bear in mind the fact that industrial cities such as Leicester will need a lot of work to be able to produce the net-zero targets, especially as there are ever-diminishing green spaces in the city?
Baroness Penn (Con)
One of the things that the Net Zero Review is looking at is the role of technology and innovation that might help cities that could struggle to meet the net-zero target to make further progress towards it.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as recorded in the register. May I ask the Minister whether the role of agriculture and domestic food production will be taken into account in the review, and also about the future of the emissions trading scheme?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Emissions trading is one aspect of meeting our net-zero target, so I think it will be taken into account in the review, as will nature-based solutions to climate change, which also form part of our strategy.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that all homes are insulated to a standard compatible with net zero?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the green homes grant, launched yesterday for applications, will deliver £2 billion-worth of funding for home owners and landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of homes and help us make progress towards that net-zero target.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister will know, one of the biggest challenges of climate change is to bring our citizens along with us. If we do not do that, we will not achieve this. Will she give us her ideas on how we should accomplish that? How will we bring citizens along to agree to these changes?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, bringing people and our citizens along with us will be a big focus for our work on COP 26—making sure that it is not just Governments getting together but businesses and citizens from the UK and across the world. Part of the point of the review cited in the original Question was to have a clear and transparent analysis of the costs and benefits, and to look at how and where they should fall, so that everyone can understand the path towards transition and the contribution that we will all have to make towards it.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, will the Government commit to creating an open, shared resource, with all the data, conclusions, research and arguments generated as part of the Net Zero Review, so that we can all go forward and benefit, as professionals, from a shared resource in creating ideas and opportunities to make progress—and, in particular, reflecting what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, so that we as citizens can share the conclusions that are reached, and the effects that they will have on us?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will take back to the Treasury the desire for the review to be as transparent as possible. I think that that is exactly the intention. We will publish an interim report this autumn. It will set out our approach to the review and will contain the analysis done to date, which will inform the final findings.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the Net Zero Review terms of reference, part 2, “Objectives”, begins:
“To consider how the transition to net zero will be funded and assess options for where the costs will fall. This will involve:”,
and then there are four bullet points, the second of which is:
“Identify mechanisms to create an equitable balance of contributions.”
Does the Minister not agree that this must mean that the issues raised by the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, must be taken into account?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I cannot pre-empt the findings of the review, but I can say that it will absolutely take into account the opportunities that arise from the transition, including for employment, productivity and economic growth. It will also consider just where the costs will fall and how they will be paid for.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB) [V]
I draw attention to my interests in the register. To build on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about citizen engagement, the citizens’ Climate Assembly UK made many great recommendations when it recently reported, many around business, which is vital to help reach net zero. Will the Government commit—as the citizens’ assembly, at 83%, agreed—to making sure that government contracts are given to responsible, low-carbon producing suppliers?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government will look very closely at the recommendations of the Climate Assembly. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that we need businesses to be on board with this agenda. One of our focuses for COP 26 is green finance, and one of our aims there is to get as many private sector actors and businesses as possible subscribed to standards for green finance that can help transform the money going into businesses and how it is allocated, taking into account climate risk, in the future.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, following on from the earlier question, what thought have the Government given to the need for retraining to open up the new kinds of jobs that will ensue?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government place huge emphasis on the importance of training as part of our green recovery. The Prime Minister made a series of announcements yesterday on plans to upgrade skills, focusing not just on young people but on older people who did not originally have those skills, to enable them, where needed, to transition to new jobs in the green economy.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
Is the Minister confident that the methodology used by the Treasury in the review will sufficiently factor in the costs of not tackling climate change, which the review carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, in 2006 estimated would be 5% of GDP by 2050?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Yes, I can reassure the noble Baroness that it will. The review is not a question of whether we need to act to meet our net-zero target; it is about how we can act to meet it. That target is set out in law. We were the first major economy to commit to it, and the review is all about how we get there. So the question of the costs of not getting there, although important, is also, I hope, one that we have put to bed.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the next Question, the fourth Oral Question, asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen.
Covid-19: NHS Application
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Massey of Darwen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they will take to encourage the uptake of the National Health Service COVID-19 application; and how the effectiveness of that application will be monitored.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, we have TV advertising, celebrity endorsement, stakeholder mobilisation, social media engagement and newspaper wraparounds. We have done an enormous amount to support the app launch, with a massive campaign—but the greatest promotion is a great product. Fifteen million downloads, 500,000 QR downloads, 8 million venue check-ins and thousands isolated suggest that the British public have embraced the app as a valued tool to protect the ones they love.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, on his birthday. The number of people downloading the app is important, but in assessing its effectiveness, what problems or elements of success will the Government look for, apart from numerical take-up?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the primary purpose of the app is to break the chain of transmission. Therefore, alerting as many people who have been in close proximity to a Covid threat as we can is a primary objective. However, the app also does an enormous amount to provide information for those trying to understand the regulations in their local area. It also does a lot to support those in isolation and we very much hope to be able to connect the payments for isolation benefit with the app in later versions.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the uptake and positive development of the Covid app is likely to be greater if it picks up on all the testing regimes, enables the user to enter a unique code that they have been given and is front and centre of having tests available to record the incidence of illness. Does the Minister agree that urgent, comprehensive testing and tracing is needed for care and health workers if all medical care is to return to normal levels, and for teachers and pupils if schools are to have the best chance of remaining open for all? Does he agree that the app would prove most effective if these goals were accomplished rapidly alongside the development of the app?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s observation. These are parallel developments and we are indeed working on them. It is important that the app captures all testing information. We are working extremely hard to ensure that all tests, wherever they come from, whether pillar 1 or pillar 2, are captured in the app. We are also doing an enormous amount to ensure that there are supporting measures for those who work in social care and teaching, so that they have the security of knowing that their workplaces are protected.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish the Minister a happy birthday. So far, £35 million has been spent on the development and testing of the app, which is approximately £15 million more than any other western European country has spent on such app development. Other than the QR code, what functionality has that £15 million been spent on, which is not available in the app of any other western European country?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the secret sauce of the app is the algorithm at its heart, which takes data from Apple and Google phones and the Bluetooth component, and applies a risk-scoring analysis that judges proximity, velocity and context to give a true assessment of risk. That is how we seek to avoid false positives and false negatives. We have invested in the algorithm in conjunction with Apple and Google and it is an incredibly important piece of added value. Without that algorithm, the app would not work properly.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on his birthday and I congratulate the Government on introducing this new technology. As he is aware, I am very supportive of this. I would be grateful if he could explain to the House what evidence there might already be from Scotland on the effectiveness of the Protect Scotland app in tracing contacts, ensuring isolation and reducing deaths.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Protect Scotland app has delivered huge value for the Scottish people. It has guided many to isolate and it has been downloaded a very large number of times. We seek to get the UK app and the Scottish app working together in the second version. We have learned an enormous amount by collaborating with Scottish colleagues and have gained enormous value from their learnings.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree that the purpose of tracing is defeated if millions of people cannot download the app because their phones are a few years old, even models as recent as those from 2018? I discovered this and felt obliged to spend a great deal of money upgrading and took the risk of travelling to a phone shop and spending an hour there doing this. However, millions will not, especially elderly people and those who live in poorer, crowded areas. What can be done for the people who cannot download the app?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I greatly regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, had to make that journey. That is a troubling thing for her to have had to do. I reassure her that 89% of the population have phones whose hardware and software is compatible. Even on today’s numbers, one-third of the 16-plus population of Britain has the app on their phone. This number is high enough to make the app extremely effective; it is an enormous penetration. While this does not account for absolutely everyone, it is terrific progress and we will build on that success.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister just gave a figure for the over-16s. In view of the outbreak of Covid in universities, what proportion of university students have accessed the app and actually used it? Am I right in thinking that it is accessible only if you are over 16? Why is this the case?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness’s question. There is a very good reason: the privacy arrangements of the app mean that we do not know who has downloaded it. This information is available only to those who have downloaded it. It is precisely because of those privacy arrangements that an enormous amount of trust is placed in the British people. However, I do not deny that it is frustrating that we do not have the kind of demographic insights that the noble Baroness quite reasonably asks for.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted that this app has now been produced. Fifteen million adopters in a week is excellent news, and I genuinely congratulate the Minister on that. However, 34 countries are already using the ENX system with Bluetooth, and it is to be regretted that we are not ahead of them, but we are not. What conversations have the Government had with some of those countries to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes that they have made on their journey? Given the importance of mass take-up—which is important before going on to talk about other things—have the Government considered discussing with Apple, Google and mobile phone suppliers such as Samsung the possibility of putting the app straight on to people’s phones at the point of sale, or point of update, with of course the option for the customer to remove it, should they wish to do so?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord has made a very detailed and technical inquiry. We are studying the ENX system very closely. However, as I mentioned earlier, the secret source of the British app is the algorithm that takes the data from Bluetooth and the phone and analyses it to give the risk assessment. Our view is that that algorithm is absolutely critical. Without it, the ENX system fires off alerts to anyone who has been proximate to another Bluetooth phone that has registered a positive test, even if they have only driven past that phone on the motorway. Those are exactly the kinds of circumstances that the British public made it crystal clear to us they simply would not tolerate. Therefore, we have put an enormous investment into that algorithm. We have had an enormous amount of interest from other countries, and we are happy to share that learning with companies as we develop our intelligence on it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
I wish my noble friend many happy returns on his birthday. Clearly, the app is a very useful tool. Does he imagine that the Government will use it in conjunction with the testing of international passengers arriving at airports? When might testing be rolled out at airports?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, version 1 does not have an international component to it, but that is something that we would seek to develop. I emphasise that the app in its current form is very much focused on providing a huge amount of personal privacy and is therefore not an appropriate vehicle for putting in place any form of surveillance or quarantine management. That would be in breach of our arrangements with our technical partners, Apple and Google. Therefore, although I cannot give my noble friend Lady McIntosh a complete answer, I would like to hint that perhaps this will not be the vehicle for accelerating airport testing.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a brief Statement about what happened yesterday.
As noble Lords will have seen, yesterday we experienced serious technical difficulties with the remote voting system during our consideration of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. The result of that difficulty was that three Divisions, on Amendments 3, 11 and 14, had to be deferred. I can confirm that we intend these Divisions to take place on Monday in what would normally be the gap in business between Oral Questions and any Private Notice Question and the beginning of debate on further groups of amendments to the Bill at the normal time of around 2.30 pm. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their forbearance.
Following the issues with the remote voting system, tests of the system will be required to ensure that it works as expected. We would welcome the participation of Members in any such tests, the timing of which will be advertised to noble Lords as soon as possible.
As far as I am aware, we are not anticipating Divisions today but, were one to be called, it, too, would have to be deferred to another day until the tests had taken place.
Finally, I place on record my thanks to the usual channels and the clerks for their constructive and flexible approach, which allowed scrutiny of the Bill to continue, despite not having Divisions yesterday.
Professional and Amateur Sport: Government Support
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when we talk about the future of professional and amateur sport, will the Minister give us some idea of what emphasis is being given to encouraging people to partake in sport, at whatever level, as opposed to simply watching it, and how the two balance each other? These are two very important aspects of the Question. Can we get clear guidance on the Government’s thinking on both matters?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
The Government have been very clear on the value of sport, both amateur and professional, and encouraging people to take part. We have welcomed many of the online initiatives over the lockdown period in particular, and have supplied funding through Sport England to the tune of £210 million to ensure that those facilities and clubs survive.
Baroness Sater (Con) [V]
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister reassure me that any government funding to be allocated will not overlook women’s sport, which recently has had some great successes in participation and popularity? We need to keep up the momentum and not lose all the good work done to make women’s sport more accessible and mainstream.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Great progress has been made at both elite and grass-roots levels in women’s sport. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport was absolutely clear yesterday, in responding to the Question, that he expects and will require women’s sport to get the priority it deserves in any funding coming from this package.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I ask you to note my interest on the register: I am chair of ukactive. Have the Government determined the impact on the NHS of the drop in activity levels and the subsequent impact this might have on sport at all levels in the UK? It is projected that 48% of leisure centres may close by Christmas without government financial support.
Baroness Barran (Con)
It is hard to assess the absolute impact of the fact that some leisure centres have not yet reopened, because obviously there is a substitution with other provision being offered, principally online. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right about the importance of sport for our physical and mental well-being. The Government understand the financial pressures that some sports and leisure centres are under, and are pleased that so many have been able to open, following Covid-secure guidelines.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
[Inaudible.] What investment will the Government make into local provision for children and young people to engage in sports and physical activity that is shaped by them, given the research of the Children’s Society highlighting the importance not only of chosen physical activity but also of positive time with peers, and the fact that that has all been horribly impacted by Covid-19?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I share the right reverend Prelate’s appreciation of the fact that sports clubs do so much more for their communities than just provide sport, and I welcome very much the pilot projects that she mentions. Through Sport England, there is a lot of collaboration with young people to ensure that local provision does indeed meet their needs and reflect their own aspirations.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will know that the 67 clubs in the national football league form the most senior levels of semi-professional football below the English Football League and play an essential part in their local communities. I declare an interest as the league’s vice-president. Match-day revenues are, for almost all the clubs, their only serious source of revenue. Can she say more about the very welcome announcement yesterday in the other place by the Minister for Sport that financial assistance is being offered to the National League so that it is able to start its season without spectators this Saturday? How much is being offered by the Government, and what do they mean when they say that the arrangements will be reviewed after the first three months?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, we have given assurance to the national football league that will allow the clubs to reopen and start playing from today. We are at the planning stage in the package that we are putting together and are looking in detail at the financial needs across all those sports that rely on spectators and match-day incomes. I am afraid that I cannot give more detail of the quantum at this stage.
Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, national football league clubs still have no idea what their settlement is, and they are being asked to start the season in good faith. At the same time, Premiership rugby clubs have been pushed to the brink by the implications of Covid and are now being driven to bankruptcy by a lack of gate receipts; none is profitable. Does the Minister agree that Premiership-level clubs are in the bracket of what the Government call “the greatest need”, and that spectator sport as a whole faces a daily fight for survival, which requires action now to allow a limited number of supporters back safely in order for it to survive and support its fan base and their communities?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are very keen to support all sports, for the reasons that we have already summarised, in terms of both their specific sporting contribution and their wider community contribution. Clearly rugby plays an important part and is very central in particular communities. We are going through this in detail with each of the governing bodies, looking at the needs of their specific sports, and will respond as quickly and as effectively as we can.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, great uncertainty exists for both professional and amateur equestrian athletes, who travel extensively to competitions with large horse-boxes around the continent. Are they exempt from needing an operator’s licence, which hauliers certainly need, or are these riders considered hauliers, which clearly they are not? What provisions are being made at Dover to cater for this form of transport?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Viscount asks a very detailed question. If I may, I will respond in writing.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sure the Minister understands that there are a lot of very important community football clubs below the level of the National League. I know and have worked with the northern league for many years. In places like Redcar, Crook in County Durham and Tow Law, the club is important not just to football enthusiasts but to the whole community. Many of them feel that if they have to go through another period of uncertainty in these areas, which are already among the poorest and most vulnerable—not only in terms of Covid but because they are what the Government call levelling-up areas—that will be a huge hit to the community. Can she assure me that she will make sure that these clubs are also considered, not just those in the National League and above in the pyramid of the FA?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that these clubs have been a crucial element in the fabric of our communities for many years, much longer than some of the elite clubs. Obviously those clubs are now allowed to have spectators in a Covid-secure way, but we are working closely with Sport England and, as I mentioned earlier, have already distributed £210 million to organisations such as those that the noble Baroness mentioned.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, had a technical problem earlier on so I call him now.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the House for its forbearance. We recognise that the DCMS and the Treasury have taken steps to support sports clubs but, as my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe observed on Monday, sector-specific intervention tends to come at the 11th hour rather than when it would have the greatest benefit. We welcome news of support for the national league, but why did we have to lose Macclesfield Town to provoke ministerial action?
The Government’s first preference is for governing bodies and clubs to do what they can within their own resources. Does the Minister accept, however, that the financial returns submitted to the department are likely to show that reserves are running perilously low or have been depleted?
While we hope there will be solidarity initiatives within sport and that this will help to keep clubs afloat, they are not sufficient. Can the Minister provide an assurance that the Government will act more swiftly and decisively, and in a manner that recognises that sports clubs not only operate as businesses in their communities but are a vital community asset?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think maybe the noble Lord asked more than one question, but I will try to answer as best I can. On his last point about acting swiftly and decisively, I reassure him that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport were on the phone to the national governing bodies of the main spectator sports immediately after the Prime Minister’s announcement that made it clear that spectators could not return on 1 October.
With regard to the financial returns, we are looking forward and are working through those, though obviously their scale and scope will vary. We are very clear about our role in helping clubs. In relation to the noble Lord’s first question, the twists and turns of the virus are difficult to predict, and we have reacted extremely promptly to the current situation.
Students’ Return to Universities
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the situation that students face as they return to university is deeply concerning. Outbreaks are spreading, thousands are now isolating, parents are increasingly worried for their children and university staff working hard to prepare for a safe return are both anxious and angry. This situation was not inevitable, but many rightly feel let down by the Government. We need a plan to get testing fit for purpose, access to remote learning for students who are isolating, and security for the future of our universities.
I ask the Minister to start resolving that today by answering some key questions. Should students who have not yet moved to campus still do so? What steps are the Government urgently taking to speed up access to Covid-19 testing at universities? What support is being offered to those institutions that are setting up their own testing facilities? How do the Government intend to increase digital access for isolating students? As a minimum, we need answers to these points if people who are involved in the university sector and education are to have some confidence of a way forward while things progress as they are.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. We on these Benches very much welcome the announcements on vocational education, particularly the flexible lifelong learning entitlement, of which we have been extolling the virtues for several years.
Regarding the apprenticeship scheme, a flagship policy of the coalition Government that has rather lost its way in recent years, we think we have seen significant reductions in the number of apprentices and the number of young people using the scheme. We need to listen to business and industry about how we can make the apprenticeship scheme work again, particularly for the creative industries.
The Government’s Kickstart programme did not actually figure in this Statement but, again, it supports young people. There is a risk that it does not provide support for those most at risk, a concern shared by many youth organisations. Rather than taking up time now, I will write to the Minister about the problems of eligibility and how they can be overcome.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I am horrified that hundreds of thousands of students have returned to their universities, often in cities and urban areas and often living in local communities. Students like to celebrate their return to university and to socialise, and we have seen over 20 cases of Covid affecting those students. It seems to me that the possibility of being able to learn online was very easy for students, so why did we bring them back? What was the scientific advice? What was the modelling that said we could bring students back to university, when they could easily have learned online, without a proper testing regime? There might have been the tests but there were not the facilities to get the test results quickly in place.
In my own city we have 70,000 students returning, many of them living in houses and flats in local communities. Many universities have monetarised their accommodation with private agreements with companies such as Unite Students and CRM, and part of those agreements is for occupancy rates of 80% to 90%. Will the Government reimburse students if they are forced to relinquish their accommodation through illness or through a decision that it is not safe for students to return to university after Christmas?
Students self-isolating in a very small space brings additional problems. Has the DfE been in touch with each university to see what additional support can be provided, be it for mental health or other needs?
In Liverpool today a local lockdown has been announced, under which different households cannot mix. How does this affect university students from different households who are sharing a house?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their questions and their attention to this issue. Starting university is a stressful experience at the best of times—people are often living away from home for the first time—but particularly so in the current circumstances. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, it is stressful not just for the students but for their parents, families and the university staff looking after them. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that throughout this pandemic our priority has always been to keep young people as safe as possible while they continue to learn.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked whether students should currently go to university. Yes, they should, if their university says that it is safe. At the beginning of this week, we had 80% of universities welcoming students back. It will be 90% by the beginning of next week. Students should check with their university and certainly go unless their university tells them not to.
The noble Lord also asked about testing. We are testing 225,000 a day at the moment, with a target to increase that to 500,000 by the end of the month. The message to students is clear, as it is to everyone else: if you have symptoms, please get a test.
The noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Storey, asked about digital access. The Government have provided over £100 million to help provide laptops and devices for disadvantaged children and young people so that they can access the education and services they need. This includes devices for care leavers, including those studying at university. We have been working with universities, which have been adept and adaptable in the current circumstances, by shifting their provision online, as they did at the end of the last academic year and continuing that work over the summer, ready for the start of the new academic year.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Storey, was anticipating the Statement on further education which my right honourable friend is making in another place as we speak. Perhaps if he writes on that we can correspond once it has been made in another place.
He also asked about face-to-face learning rather than online learning. There are some courses where face-to-face provision is important—for instance, in the creative sector and for medical degrees, which are so important in the current circumstances. Universities are using a blend of online and face-to-face teaching with the provisions and mitigations in place to do that safely.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about accommodation and households. In student halls, it is universities and HE providers that determine what a household is, often around a shared kitchen or shared bathroom facilities. They will provide advice to students about how they can safely self-isolate in a household if that is what they need to do in their part of the country. The Government play no direct role in provision of student accommodation, whether managed by universities or the private sector, but we have urged universities and private hall providers to be fair in their decisions about rent charges in the current climate. Some universities and large companies have waived rents for the summer term or released students early from their contracts at the end of the last academic year, which we welcomed. If students think their accommodation provider is treating them unfairly, they can raise a complaint under the student accommodation code if their provider is a member.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Jopling (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that cash-strapped universities are currently crucially dependent on overseas students. Yesterday at the virtual court meeting of the University of York, we were told of their concern about the shortage of flights from eastern Asia. Students are not arriving and they face long delays. Surely, the Government can collaborate with universities to see how they can help. Airlines have spare capacity, aircraft are sitting around and, presumably, students will be prepared to pay to travel to their academic work here. If the Government can move in to see what they can do to help, it would be much appreciated.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very happy to tell my noble friend that not only will we but we are working with the sector and others on these issues. We have been working with the Civil Aviation Authority to monitor the availability of commercial flights for international students travelling to the UK. We have been working with Universities UK International to support the higher education sector with chartering flights if that is what is needed. The Department for International Trade has been working closely with, for instance, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to secure the necessary approvals for flights to the UK from China. I am pleased to say that it has recently been successful in getting such permissions.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of governors of Cardiff Metropolitan University, Welsh University of the Year. In Wales from last Easter, hybrid learning was planned based on two-metre distancing. Given concerns for the risks to student mental health in the absence of face-to-face delivery, are the Government asking English universities urgently to consider the application of these design principles for all courses, not just in healthcare and arts and design?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We expect the majority of universities to be open with a blend of face-to-face and online teaching. As the noble Baroness said, that is important for the provision of education and the mental health and well-being of students, because university is rightly a sociable environment. We recognise that many students and staff will face additional mental health challenges. The guidance we have provided to the sector covers the need for universities to provide additional mental health and well-being support. We are doing what we can, for instance, with the money we have made available for hardship funds for those the current circumstances are causing extra stress.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, the Statement says that Ministers will work with universities to ensure that all students can return home for Christmas. Will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to work with universities to ensure that students’ mental health and capacity to learn are not compromised by draconian lockdowns of halls of residence? Has the Department for Education been in touch with the Office for Students to prevent this happening again?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for the opportunity to reiterate what my right honourable friend says: we are working with universities to ensure that all students are supported to return home safely and can spend Christmas with their loved ones if they choose to. We will be providing guidance after consultation with the sector to say how that can be done safely at the end of term. Regarding the Office for Students, the noble Baroness may have seen that Sir Michael Barber, its chair, has written today in the Daily Telegraph about the work the OfS is doing to support students. Its student panel is meeting today to discuss how students see the situation, which will inform the response. That is in addition to the HE task force the Government have set up so that we can talk to the sector more generally.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, if we heard that a third-world country had locked up its students without access to food we would rightly be horrified. Yet that is what this Conservative Government have done to our students. The possible harm from Covid transmission is nothing compared to the harm from this draconian action, which will lead young people to distrust authority and despise politicians. Can the Minister persuade his colleagues, as a matter of urgency, to reverse this dreadful punishment and allow our students to be students?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Well, I do not recognise the characterisation that the noble Baroness gives of what is going on. As my right honourable friend said in his Statement, students as well as the wider community accept that in a global pandemic there have to be restrictions, for the good of themselves and the community more widely. But we do not believe that we should be inflicting any stricter measures on students; we are asking no more or less of them than we would of any other adult at this difficult time. We are working with universities to make sure that they can support the students studying there to get on with their lives as safely as possible and benefit from their education, while keeping themselves and the community safe.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, Scottish students and those from other EU countries attending Scottish universities pay no tuition fees, and it is now reported that they are being offered discounted accommodation costs. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that every student attending university in the United Kingdom is treated fairly? If the universities cannot deliver the product they sold, why should young people have to meet the full cost?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As my noble friend points out, university provision is a devolved matter and different Administrations take different approaches throughout the UK. Her Majesty’s Government expect universities to continue to deliver a high-quality academic experience. As I said, we have seen some fantastic and innovative ways in which universities have adapted to the current circumstances. It is between students and their provider as to whether they think they are getting the quality of education that they signed up for. An established process is in place for students with concerns about their education to follow in England and Wales: in the first instance, it will be through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Statement contains several excellent initiatives. My main concern is that students leaving home for the first time will be under additional pressure to socialise. Meeting and sharing concerns with others are essential for mental health. Under such pressures, it is easy to forget the somewhat complex guidance. Will the Minister stress the need for displays at places of learning, emphasising the risk of careless mingling to the students’ own life chances and the health and well-being of those they hold dear?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his welcome for what is contained in the Statement. He is absolutely right: as I say, universities should be a sociable experience. People learn not just in lecture halls but in discussions with their fellow students and those around them. We have been providing guidance to HE providers to make sure that people can enjoy as normal and fulfilling a university experience as possible at the moment, while keeping themselves and those around them safe.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare a lapsed interest as, until midnight, I was chair of council of Lancaster University. Does the noble Lord recognise the enormous efforts that universities have made to provide a Covid-secure environment for their students and, in particular, to sustain face-to-face teaching, which I believe to be the essence of the university experience? Can he explain why, to the latest knowledge I have, there is a very serious weakness in the provision of testing facilities on campuses? At Lancaster, we have been promised the possibility of a mobile unit in something like 10 days’ time, which would be on campus for a couple of days. If we are to sustain this Covid-secure environment, we need more action on testing.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord on the completion of his term as pro-vice chancellor at Lancaster. He will be a tough act to follow, but I see that my right honourable friend—as he would be if he were still in another place—Alistair Burt is going to give following in his footsteps his best shot. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we want to see face-to-face teaching where that is safe and possible. Universities are doing a blend of online and face-to-face, depending on the courses and the circumstances, and on the public health needs in their locality. We are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including where there are outbreaks, and prioritising at-risk groups. But we are working closely with universities so that we can make sure that they are keeping staff and students as safe as possible.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, has run into a technical problem so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I declare as interest as Chancellor of Cardiff University. I am very proud of what that university has done to sustain both face-to-face and online teaching. Cardiff is one of the universities offering testing: ours is asymptomatic testing, which will enable up to 1,000 staff and students per day to be tested. It is one of the latest generation of much more accurate tests, using the sophisticated technology that underlies the Government’s Moonshot ambition. What financial support do the Government plan to give to universities to increase the availability of their tests, because it costs millions to set this up, and to allow them to be opened up to the wider public? Will the Government fast-track the accreditation for such university laboratories and link them into the national network?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I commend the work of Cardiff and other universities, not just for providing tests for students and staff on their campuses but of course for their work in developing a vaccine. Our universities really are at the forefront of it, which is why we need to make sure that they are operating and working as well as they can. The Government are working closely with NHS Test and Trace to get to a position in which all universities have access to a testing centre within 1.5 miles of their campus, with priority for universities in areas of national intervention. On the financial point, I will write to the noble Baroness with further information if she would be happy with that.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, understandably we hear much about the short-term impact of the pandemic on students and universities, but there is a long-term impact too: for an increasing number of university students, the postgraduate outcomes are not great. May I encourage my noble friend the Minister to take this opportunity to examine all the choices that we offer to young people as they leave school, including further education colleges and apprenticeship routes? In many cases, these alternative routes may be more attractive and may lead to greater opportunities out in the world of work, especially in the challenging times ahead.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend makes a very topical point. She will have seen our right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s speech on this very issue on Tuesday, when he talked about the new lifetime skills guarantee and addressing the gulf between so-called academic and so-called practical education. As he said, we want to end that bogus distinction between HE and FE. It is particularly topical because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is making a Statement on it in another place with further detail as we speak.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, following the excellent example of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, instead of locking up students and placing security officers outside their doors, does the Minister agree that students in Covid hotspots should be prioritised for double testing, whether or not they have symptoms? If they tested negative, they could get on with their lives; if positive, they would of course need to self-isolate. When will that be possible?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said, we are prioritising testing. On double testing, I am afraid I cannot say more, but we will certainly take that back and reply more fully to the noble Baroness. Decisions on what measures are applied and where have to be made by local public health teams, based on the information that they receive through NHS Test and Trace. Universities themselves are not decision-makers there. As I say, we are asking the same of students as we are of any other adults around the country in these trying times.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister talked about the provision of computers for students, but there seems to be a lot of variability in the quality and quantity of the online provision that is available. What discussions have the Government had with the regulator to make sure that there is a consistently high standard of online tuition, and that we can learn from best practice?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said, the Office for Students task force is meeting today, and I am sure that will be one of the points raised and fed back so that we hear directly from students. We are making sure that we provide hardship funding for those who need it and IT equipment, targeted in particular at groups such as care leavers who can most benefit from them. I will certainly keep an eye on the situation, as I know the noble Baroness will.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
I declare an interest as a visiting professor lecturing at Plymouth University, and a visiting fellow at Cambridge University, on planning matters. So I will be doing that virtually this year.
I emphasise to the Minister my support for what they are doing. Keeping universities open is absolutely critical, because many students, if they were not able to complete their degree now, would never be able to go back to it, and there would not be the capacity in the university system to double-enter future students with current students for that to happen. So it is vital that universities are kept open. For that, many are struggling with the resourcing needed for the extra costs currently involved. Will the Minister continue to work closely with universities to meet their needs—accepting that some funding has already been provided?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of keeping universities open and thank him for the part that he is personally playing in that. As Sir Michael Barber said today in his article, we cannot
“put a generation of young people’s lives on hold.”
We have to have the right mitigations to make sure that they are doing it safely, but we have to keep universities open for business, and the Government will continue to engage with the sector, as we are doing through the HE task force.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it has been reported that in some universities, private security guards, presumably employed by college authorities, secure and lock premises to prevent students leaving their halls of residence. Was there a vote on this matter in another place? If not, could the Minister explain under what legal authority this draconian action was taken?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, decisions on what measures to apply, and where, are made by public health teams, based on information from NHS Test and Trace. It is not for universities to make those decisions but, as the noble Lord will be aware, as of Monday this week it is illegal to not self-isolate if you are notified by a public health official that you have tested positive or have had close contact with somebody who has tested positive, and that can be enforced by the police. Universities, as responsible providers, are there to make sure that guidance is being followed by those who are studying at them.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests.
Does my noble friend accept that on-campus learning is still important for the education and well-being of students, and that for students who live at home, often in multi-occupancy homes, while attending university, a physical campus learning space is essential? Will he join me to paying tribute to the University of Bolton, where I am a pro-vice chancellor, which, in very difficult local lockdown circumstances, has introduced a series of Covid measures that have enabled the university to continue to provide a guaranteed minimum level of contact learning?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly join my noble friend in providing that congratulation to the University of Bolton; that is exactly the sort of response we are seeing from across the sector to make sure that students get the high-quality education they expect. My noble friend is right that that should be accompanied by the student experience more broadly—learning to live away from home, meeting people from different backgrounds and exchanging ideas—which is such an integral part of the university experience. We need to make sure that universities are doing that and doing it safely.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the Statement, the Secretary of State said:
“As with all our education settings, we will continue monitoring the situation closely and will follow the latest scientific advice, adapting policies as the situation changes.”
What is the latest scientific advice to universities, especially to those that do not have their own testing capacity?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As my right honourable friend said, we continue to follow the scientific advice; this is a changing circumstance, and the advice changes as well. We are providing guidance to the sector, as we did most recently on 10 September, to inform universities as term began. As that changes, we will update it and provide it directly to universities. I imagine that that is published, but if it is not I will correct the record and write to the noble Baroness.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in today’s list. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. If a Division is pressed, it will be deferred to a later date.
Agriculture Bill
Thursday 1st October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (28 Sep 2020)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Agriculture Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 17: Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance
Amendment 1
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(ba) the Scottish Ministers, in the case of an agreement entered into or an operational programme approved in accordance with any provision or provisions so far as having effect in relation to Scotland;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Scottish Ministers to give financial assistance under Clause 17.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to a small number of technical amendments, and I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
These are technical operability amendments and do not represent any change of policy. The Government are acting on very recent legal advice from the European Law Group and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Government’s primary legislation drafters, on the interpretation of the withdrawal agreement as regards retained EU law, with the objective of ensuring that no doubt remains that these powers to continue EU CAP legacy schemes will operate as intended for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Amendments 1 and 4 relate to the new clause created by Amendment 45, as agreed on Report, “Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance”, and will ensure that the Scottish Government are able to make domestic payments where agreements and programmes are currently supported under an EU programme relating to rural development or fruit and vegetable producers once the funding for the programme has been used up. This amendment has been tabled at the request of the Scottish Government, whose primary legislation has progressed quickly through their Parliament and who do not have, as a result, an immediate opportunity to correct this themselves.
Amendments 2 and 3 have the effect of adding the promotions aid legislation—EU regulation 1144/2014, delegated regulation 2015/1829 and implementing regulation 2015/1831—to the list of legislation which will become retained EU law under the new clause created by Amendment 46 “Retained direct EU legislation”, as agreed on Report. This ensures that EU legislation relating to promotion measures for agricultural products which has a direct impact under the withdrawal agreement in relation to existing programmes will also be included in retained direct EU legislation. We have made these amendments at the request of DAERA, which wants to retain the ability to carry out agri-promotion legacy schemes in Northern Ireland under this legislation after the end of the transition period.
Government Amendments 107 and 110 at Report gave Welsh Ministers and DAERA the power to modify retained EU law for CMO apiculture legacy schemes. Amendments 5 and 6 correct a drafting oversight by specifying the resolution procedure for government Amendments 107 and 110 as agreed at Report, for the Welsh Government and DAERA to make regulations in their respective parliaments.
In line with the Sewel convention, the UK Government have sought the legislative consent of all the devolved legislatures for the provisions that engage the LCM process. I am pleased to report that each of the devolved legislatures has agreed legislative consent for the Agriculture Bill on the recommendation of its respective devolved Administration. The Northern Ireland Assembly agreed to the LCM on 31March 2020; the Senedd Cymru on 29 September and the Scottish Parliament on 30 September.
I would like to make clear again that these are purely technical amendments and were tabled at the request of the devolved Administrations to ensure that the legislation operates as intended. These amendments are consequential upon those tabled at Report to reflect the new European Law Group advice. The Government have not changed their policy. I hope that noble Lords will understand my wish, on behalf of the devolved Administrations, to ensure that these matters are firmly settled before the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words. First, I repeat what I said at Report: I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the way he has conducted this Bill, for his kindness and for the way he explained it and answered questions in such a helpful manner. I thank him and all the Front Benches for their hard work on this marathon Bill. They will be more pleased than anyone that we are now at Third Reading.
I want to ask a question or two about Amendment 1, on providing financial assistance for continuing EU programmes as far as Scotland is concerned. The Minister said this was a technical amendment—if I have got this right—because the Scottish Parliament did not have the opportunity to legislate. I was mystified, however, about why it was not included earlier and why we had to wait until Third Reading—at the 59th minute of the 11th hour—to include it, because the original draft included powers for the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, but Scotland was not included at all. Why has it been delayed? Are there changed circumstances? Will the Minister expand on that? Was it an oversight or have the circumstances changed?
I am a bit worried that sometimes in Whitehall—not through any malevolence, but just through oversight—we provide fuel for the fires of nationalism that are currently burning and that, on all sides of the House, we do not want to encourage. Therefore, it is very important that we get these things right and get them right early on in the process, so that we are not seen to be putting Scotland in as an afterthought.
Agricultural activities are carried out on two-thirds of the land area of Scotland. It is very important and right that the decisions about funding these continuing EU programmes be made as near as possible to the area in which they are taking place. The Scottish Parliament and Government clearly fulfil that objective. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that it was not an afterthought, that it is a technical amendment and that the interests of Scottish farmers, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government were not overlooked, because it is a very important issue. I would be grateful for that reassurance from the Minister.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this small group of amendments and will speak in particular to Amendments 1 and 4.
My concerns echo those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. This is a recurrent theme expressed by the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies which we hear of in the EU Environment Sub-Committee, on which I have the privilege to sit. In thanking my noble friend for listening to their concerns and bringing these amendments forward, I note that consent was given by the Scottish Parliament only yesterday, which seems quite late. Would my noble friend use his good offices to keep Parliament informed and update us on continued progress and on how this will impact negotiations and, afterwards, the implementation of the new policy? It is very important that the national Parliament at Westminster should be kept informed on the impact on the devolved Assemblies.
I take this opportunity, as I will not participate on the last stage, to thank my noble friend for his boundless patience, courtesy and tolerance during the many hours of debate. Through him, I thank the Bill team for the outstanding service they have performed to the House. I also thank the Public Bill Office and all who have been involved, including my noble friend’s able assistant, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who has been utterly charming and patient throughout this process.
As my noble friend Lord Gardiner is aware, I hoped he would have brought forward a government amendment on another issue. The House has spoken; it voted overwhelmingly, by I think a majority of 100, to take forward an amendment to the House of Commons on protecting our standards and ensuring that imported food products continue to meet these standards. I also look forward to my noble friend and his department’s response to the Dimbleby report, which would have been very helpful to have.
We are on a voyage of discovery, as there is very little detail about either the interim SFI or the ELMS proceedings—the sustainable farming initiative and the new environmental land management schemes. But we are at this stage, and I congratulate my noble friend on all the hard work from him and his department to get us here.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the rationale behind these somewhat late amendments. Over the last 18 months, there have been several occasions on which we have debated legislation under the Defra banner which has been amended for a variety of reasons—with the sheer weight of legislation in Bills and statutory instruments, the degree of detail needed and the very short timeframes have meant that unforced errors have occurred. The main thing is that, in this case, the Government have been able to act so that omissions were rectified.
The first amendment, as the Minister indicated, is at the request of the Scottish devolved Administration to ensure that their agriculture Bill could provide the continuing financial assistance that will be needed and give Scotland the same powers as Wales, England and Northern Ireland. The third amendment is consequential on the first. It would have been helpful if the Scottish Administration realised this omission earlier, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
The second amendment, to Clause 18, relates to retained EU law for promotion schemes for agri-foods not to be used in England, Scotland or Wales. Northern Ireland wanted to keep its options open, so we have this amendment.
These are very technical issues, but it is often those that trip us all up. This is, as has been indicated, all very last minute. I understand that this could not be covered later by secondary legislation but would have needed primary legislation to comply with the multiannual financial arrangements.
The last two amendments relate to powers enabling the Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly to enact legislation for bees to be included in the Bill. We have debated on many occasions the crucial role that bees and other pollinators play in ensuring that our crops, flowers and trees flourish and survive. I find it extraordinary that such a vital section of the Bill, on apiculture, should have been left without any means of legally ensuring its continuity. However, the error was discovered in the nick of time. I support this group of amendments.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these amendments. As I know he is aware, it is clearly very frustrating that they have been tabled at such a late stage. As he has explained, several of the changes come as a result of late requests from the devolved nations. It is a worrying sign of the complexity of legislation across the four nations that decisions are being made on different timeframes and with different consequences for the agricultural community. It underlines our view that we need a robust framework agreement within which we can anticipate and plan legislative changes affecting the four nations in an orderly way in future.
It is understandable that Scotland might want the same powers as other devolved nations to provide financial assistance for rural development initiatives, but I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Foulkes on this. When were the Scottish Government made aware that the powers applied to everybody apart from Scotland, and when did they put in their request to add these powers into the Bill? If future requests are made by the devolved nations, would it be possible to deal with them via secondary legislation, since, had this Bill passed, where or how else could these matters have been pursued?
The Minister also explained that there had been a drafting error on the management of apiculture. It needs a resolution procedure for changes, which has now been included in the Bill as a negative resolution. Have these late changes been sent to the Delegated Powers Committee for review? What provisions are available if other drafting errors of this kind come to light once the Bill has been passed? It goes without saying that we hope no other errors appear, but sadly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, reminded us, the department has not been exempt from similar errors in secondary legislation in our recent past. Unfortunately, we have form on this.
Finally, the Minister explained that a small number of changes arise from a change in advice from the lawyers about how sections of the withdrawal agreement should be interpreted. Were the lawyers made aware that this Bill was reaching its final stages of consideration and were they given a deadline for their advice which would have allowed the consequences of it to be introduced into the Bill in a timely way? I know the Minister shares our frustration that these issues have arisen at such a late stage. If nothing else, I hope there can be a resolution from the department to learn from these errors so that the same mistakes do not occur in the next piece of legislation and that we can deal with all these matters in a timely manner.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate on these technical amendments. No one could be more frustrated than I am at coming before your Lordships at Third Reading with new technical amendments. It is not desirable, and I regret it.
However, on the issue with the Scottish Government, I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and all noble Lords that there was no afterthought. Nothing was overlooked. What I am bringing forward is at the request of the Scottish Government. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that this is why work on the framework, collaboration and working together, although agriculture is devolved, are so important.
We clearly did not want to assume that Scotland also wanted powers and we waited for the Scottish Government to confirm that they wanted the provisions extended to them before assuming that that would be the case. We are in regular contact with officials in the Scottish Government. We understood that they were made aware on 15 September; we gave timings and deadlines, and the Delegated Powers Committee was made aware.
I agree that in the perfect world we would have been able to include these at least on Report, if not before, but they are issues that have recently come forward. As I said, I felt that it was better these were dealt with, as they needed to be, in primary legislation. Given the fact that these were flagged up and that the devolved Administrations sought us to attend to them for them, I thought it would be austere—to say the least—to say, “No, you’d better wait for opportunities within your own Administrations.” That is why, although I am frustrated about it and I recognise that frustration, they have come forward.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their kind remarks. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that no one wants to have legislation that is in error in any sense. That is why we have professionals and lawyers bringing forward that expertise. Obviously, what has happened here is that there are some things which the devolved Administrations have looked at and said, “Actually, we would like to have this within our own legislative framework and our own schedules.”
On the point about apiculture, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that bees and pollinators are absolutely essential not only for our crops but for the natural world. This was about ensuring that the regulations in Wales and Northern Ireland, and any changes in them, were to be dealt with by the negative resolution. It was not that there were no regulatory powers; it was to confirm it would be through the negative resolution.
As I say, I wish that these matters had come forward earlier, but—I say this particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised it—I want to get these things right. That is why I have asked your Lordships to accept these amendments. I reiterate that they do not represent any change, they are consequential on those tabled on Report, and they reflect the advice that we need to attend to these for the devolved Administrations at their request. Given the time constraints, introducing them at this stage did at least allow us to ensure that the legislation operates as intended and, very importantly, to the satisfaction of the devolved Administrations. We have had very positive working relationships on the Bill, and more widely as a department. I am very pleased that each devolved legislature has agreed the legislative consent for the Bill on the recommendation of their respective devolved Administrations.
I know that my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised issues separate to the amendments themselves, which obviously I will reflect on. In the meantime, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s other amendment to this clause.
“(6) The legislation within this subsection is—(a) Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in third countries,(b) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1829 of 23 April 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in third countries, and(c) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1831 of 7 October 2015 laying down rules for application of Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in the third countries.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that EU legislation relating to promotion measures for agricultural products that has direct effect under the Withdrawal Agreement in relation to existing programmes will also be retained direct EU legislation.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to Clause 17.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(3) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to negative resolution procedure (unless section 54(5) applies).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the procedure for the regulation making power contained in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(3) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to negative resolution procedure (unless section 54(5) applies).”Member’s explanatory statement.
This amendment sets out the procedure for the regulation making power contained in paragraph 6 of Schedule 6.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, we have come to this final stage of—I think we would say—lengthy deliberations on a Bill which will have a lasting impact on farming and the rural economy. It has been my privilege, coming from a farming background, to have responsibility for the Bill.
It has also presented, if I may say, some challenges from all sides of the House—and quite often from behind me. I am clear that our consideration of the Bill has been full and detailed. My noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist—to whom I pay a very strong tribute—and I have enjoyed the opportunity to discuss with your Lordships these important matters. I think we would all accept that it has been wide ranging, and I entirely appreciate the commitment with which your Lordships have scrutinised the Bill.
In particular, I acknowledge the cordial working relationship we have both had with the noble Baronesses on the Front Benches opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. We all seek a vibrant future for British farmers and the production of food of high quality and to a high standard. Farmers are also custodians of the countryside and our landscapes, and I believe the Bill provides a framework for these two imperatives: food production and an enhanced environment.
I also take the opportunity to thank the Bill team and all the officials at Defra and within the devolved Administrations for their collaborative working, which has made my task not only—on most occasions—straightforward but especially stimulating and rewarding. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind comments. By any measure, consideration of the Bill has been a mammoth task. In many ways, this is not surprising: this Bill is the first major piece of farming legislation for about 40 years, so there was a lot to discuss. We certainly had a lot of discussion.
I feel I know so much more about the personal lives of so many Peers—their favourite butterflies, their favourite trees, their best-loved walks and landscapes, and even sometimes their special hobbies. Their determination to keep talking past my bedtime has been impressive. I have also been genuinely impressed by their commitment to the environment, and indeed to a policy based on nature-friendly farming for the future. Throughout it all, the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, have been the personification of patience and courtesy, and I pay tribute to them both for their professionalism and for initiating the many briefings and discussions which took place around the Bill in an attempt to reach understanding and consensus.
At the end of the day, we have sent only six amendments back to the Commons, and those represent some of the biggest issues where we were unable to reach a consensus. I hope the Commons will understand the strength of feeling from around the Chamber on our concerns, and indeed feel able to reflect on and reconsider its position on those issues. I really hope that it is able to do that, but I suspect that this is not quite the end of the road for the Bill and that it will be back with us again all too soon.
In the meantime, I formally thank both the Minister and the Bill team for getting us to this point. I also thank Daniel Stevens, our legislative officer, for his excellent advice and drafting skills. Finally, I thank my noble friends Lord Grantchester and Lady Wilcox for contributing their expertise with such style and for being such great partners in our team.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his time, patience and wisdom in helping us through the passage of the Bill. We have had a great many amendments to deal with, many speakers and some very late nights. Throughout, the Minister has been thorough in his responses and polite; I am sure, had I been in his place, I would not have remained so placid. I am very grateful to him for his diligence and support.
Like others, I have learned a great deal more about agriculture and the land through the passage of the Bill. I also place on record my thanks to the officials for the numerous briefings we have received over the months since Easter. In some cases, there were over 15 officials on the Zoom calls, helping us to get to grips with the Bill and the many clauses we were attempting to amend.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for their support throughout this process, and those on the Cross Benches who have worked with us to ensure that the issues the public were so concerned about got a proper airing. I agree with her that it will be interesting to see what the Commons sends back to us.
Lastly, but by no means least, I thank the Liberal Democrat whips’ office, without which I would have been floundering with the processes involved in getting to this stage today. This has been a long haul, but we have got there. I again thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, for their guidance on the Bill.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and before her the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Both have contributed enormously to the debates on this Bill. It is a daunting task to be speaking on behalf of my noble friends from the Cross Benches. I could not possibly reflect the depth and breadth of experience and knowledge that resides within the Cross-Bench group. It is a great honour to speak on behalf of my colleagues at Third Reading.
This Bill is of huge significance. I was listening to a presentation yesterday, during which this point in history was once again likened to the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and the 1947 Agriculture Act. It represents fundamental change: a once in a lifetime opportunity to reshape the management of the countryside and how we redesign our agriculture. For myself, and a number of us on the Cross Benches and indeed across the whole House, farming and land management have been our main occupation and our lifetime’s work. So, to have the opportunity of participating in this Bill, trying to shape it to make sure it is fit for purpose, has been a privilege and an incredible experience.
I genuinely believe that the amendments that my noble friends and I have sponsored have improved the Bill. I will not attempt to list them, because I run the risk of missing an important contribution, but I have, once again, been so impressed by the depth of resource, the expertise and the knowledge available on the Benches. To be able to interrogate this Bill line by line and scrutinise with vast knowledge of the subject does demonstrate, once again, the value of this House.
Of course, the job is not finished: I do hope our colleagues in the other House do not dismiss our amendments out of hand, but take them seriously, recognising that they are a genuine attempt to improve the Bill and to cover issues of importance and relevance to the agricultural sector at this great time of change. Also, since this is a framework Bill, we look forward to receiving more detail in due course, particularly as evidence from the ELMS pilots becomes available. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the House will have the opportunity to comment on the ELMS pilots and the plans to roll them out nationally in due course.
Finally, it is my pleasure to thank all those who have contributed to the smooth running of the process in challenging circumstances: the Bill team was incredibly helpful in dealing with endless queries and in the drafting of amendments; the clerks, as usual, in their guidance and organisational professionalism; the many who work behind the scenes have played a key role, particularly the digital team, who successfully delivered a service to us all so we could contribute in sequence—quite remarkable technology. I thank them all very much indeed. Once again, a big thank you to the Front Bench ministerial team for their tolerance, courtesy, patience and the comprehensive way in which they responded to debates. Thank you.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I do not think we have the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, do we? No. Then we will go on to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, we have had a very interesting, worthwhile and civilised series of sessions, discussing our individual, and the Government’s, visions, ideas and plans for the future of rural Britain and agriculture. Clearly there are disagreements, but overall there is a degree of consensus, which I personally much welcome. However, while I do not wish to be the bad fairy at the christening, I do wish to point out that this is an enabling Bill, and without the measures that follow, nothing can result. It is about that that I wish to comment and, at this point, I reiterate my interest as declared in the register and note the agricultural organisations with which I am involved.
I feel I have no alternative but to tell the House that I fear the emperor may have no clothes. I have had no information not in the public domain, and I know that some confidential information has in fact found its way into the press. However, I am quite clear that a number of those who are committed to working closely with the Government and Defra on these matters, and who will not fail to continue to do so—people who come from the practical world of agriculture and the environment—are very concerned that the department is simply not grounded in reality. Farming and land management have to be grounded.
In particular, there are real anxieties about the ability of the Sustainable Food Initiative to act as a bridge between the basic payment scheme and ELMS because, quite simply, there is not enough money. It is as simple as that, and those who say it understand these things. Equally, there is no confidence that working IT systems either will or indeed can be put in place in time. After all, we have been there quite recently. Failure in these respects will certainly lead to significant numbers of farms and rural businesses going bust.
The Minister, as many have said quite rightly, has conducted the proceedings in a genial and constructive manner admired by all around the House, but we must not forget what is happening behind the proscenium arch and curtain in front of which he delivers his lines. If I am right—and, unusually for me, I hope I am not, but I fear it is possible I may be—all that we have been discussing over the past few weeks will turn out to be an agreeable hallucination that will turn into nightmares or worse for many in rural Britain, particularly smaller businesses. Perfectly decent enabling legislation is quite capable of metamorphosing into appalling public administration. Let us all hope and pray that it will not happen in this instance, but the potential for it to do so is clearly there.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I think we can now call the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Is the noble Lord there?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We can hear you: carry on.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I think, perhaps, if the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, cannot hear us, we will have to call it a day. I am sorry about that. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has withdrawn, so I now call the Minister.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Marlesford that I will contact him and hear what he has to say. We have heard from the South Downs, Somerset, Northumberland, Cumbria, and we would have heard from Suffolk—that range of great landscape and food production. I am reminded by the two noble Baronesses talking of late nights that of course there are late nights of harvest as we try to ensure we get as much in before the weather changes or before the moisture rate gets too much. There are also early mornings, which is so much a feature of livestock farming. I know very few farmers who think that late nights are a very good idea. So there has been some stamina about our deliberations, and that is something I admire in this House. We really get stuck in and we take to these things.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, with his very great experience, used the word “reshaping”, but there are some great constants as well. It is essential that we provide good food in this country. It is essential that we have good husbandry of the animals that we are the custodians of as farmers, that provide food as well.
I also reflect on the experience of your Lordships and, as I have said before, being a Minister in the House of Lords is a very different concept to the other place. I know that there are many noble Lords who know far more about the subject than I do. That is not the case, I suspect, in the other place, and it sometimes does help to raise one’s game.
On ELMS, I well understand the importance of the test and trials. That is why I have been very straightforward with your Lordships that across the piece, in every part of the country, with all land tenures and different topographies, the tests and trials are in place so that this works for the farmer and the land manager. Whether it is tier 1, 2 or 3, it is designed to be their scheme too. I look forward to keeping your Lordships involved and engaged in those matters.
I have to warn your Lordships that obviously Defra will bring forward a programme of statutory instruments; I understand that three will arise from this legislation. However, clearly, in the months and years ahead, statutory instruments will be engaged as we move forward, and I look forward to working with your Lordships on them.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that we have of course found a lot of consensus, and where we have disagreed and there have been civilised collisions, I utterly respect the views that have been expressed. I say to the noble Lord that I think I am grounded, and I know jolly well that my ministerial colleagues are. We are acutely aware, as we go through a period of change, that we need to work with each and every farmer up and down the land and to work collaboratively with them, because this is a joint venture. I am not very good with IT systems—I am always nervous of them. I have taken that point and I have already made that point, but it is helpful to have that on the record. [Interruption.] There must be a farmyard somewhere in the House.
We have all worked extremely hard on the Bill and it has been a privilege to serve your Lordships.
Fire Safety Bill
Thursday 1st October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 September 2020 - (7 Sep 2020)
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to bring this Bill before the House today for its Second Reading. While short, it introduces important measures designed to keep people safe from the risk of fire.
None of us will ever forget the tragic events at Grenfell Tower in the early morning of 14 June, nor will we forget the 72 people who lost their lives in the most appalling circumstances. Our thoughts today are very much with the victims’ families, the survivors and fellow residents, who have had to rebuild their lives over the past three and a half years. Yesterday evening I was privileged to visit the Grenfell Tower site and tour the Lancaster West Estate at the invitation of the Lancaster West Residents’ Association. I thank its members for a constructive meeting thereafter.
A full independent inquiry was established in the aftermath of the fire, which is being led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, to understand what happened and make recommendations to ensure it can never happen again. The Government also commissioned an independent review of building regulations and safety, led by Dame Judith Hackitt. Her findings have underpinned our unprecedented programme of building and fire safety reform.
We are resolute in our commitment to delivering change, and significant steps have already been taken to address building safety and fire safety risks. The Bill is just one part of that wider programme. There is considerable experience across the House and, as we take forward the Bill, we will be listening, as well as working with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue.
Before I go further, I take the opportunity to thank our fire and rescue services for their incredible response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Across the nation, around 4,000 firefighters and staff are now helping in the broader Covid-19 efforts. The National Fire Chiefs Council very quickly agreed a framework with unions and employers for firefighters to support the vulnerable and their emergency service partners. This has enabled firefighters to provide support to the NHS and ambulance trusts, the most vulnerable people, and coroners: at one stage, 300 firefighters were helping ambulance services in London alone. As the Minister with responsibility for fire, I am incredibly proud of the way they have responded to the crisis.
As soon as possible after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the Government started working with relevant authorities and building owners to identify the risk and prevalence of buildings with unsafe aluminium composite material cladding and set up a comprehensive programme to remediate buildings of 18 metres and above with unsafe ACM.
We have since taken many other steps. These include setting up an independent expert panel on building safety, chaired by Sir Ken Knight, a former London Fire Commissioner and Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser, to provide advice to government and building owners, and making £600 million available to social and private sector landlords to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe ACM cladding on residential buildings over 18 metres. Progress by building owners has been far too slow. However, as of 31 August 2020, of the 458 high- rise residential buildings identified as having unsafe ACM cladding, 74% of them have either started or completed works to remove it.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor announced in this year’s Budget that the Government are providing a further £1 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding systems for both the social and private residential sectors on buildings of 18 metres and above. Those who registered for the £1 billion fund are now able to submit their funding applications.
Every single person in this country, no matter where they live, has the right to feel safe in their own home. Alongside the risk it posed, ACM cladding placed an enormous psychological and emotional burden on residents of high-rise buildings, each wondering whether their home would be next. It is right that we act to remove this danger.
In addition to the removal of ACM cladding, the Home Office has also provided £30 million of additional funding for fire and rescue services. Some £20 million of this is to allow them to increase their capacity and capability, while £10 million has been allocated specifically to the National Fire Chiefs Council—to strengthen its protection activity—and to the building risk review programme, which will ensure that all high-rise residential buildings in England are inspected or reviewed by December 2021. A further £10 million has been made available via a protection uplift fund so that fire and rescue services can increase their focus on other high-risk categories of buildings, and £10 million has been provided to build the NFCC’s central capability and ensure that it can implement the lessons from the Grenfell tragedy in local services contained in the phase 1 inquiry.
The Queen’s Speech committed the Government to bringing forward two Bills on fire and building safety. The first is this short, technical Fire Safety Bill, which will amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The second, the building safety Bill, will later be led by me in this House, and was published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny on 20 July. The draft building safety Bill proposes to put in place an enhanced safety framework for high-rise residential buildings, taking forward the recommendations from Dame Judith’s review. It will bring about a fundamental change in both the regulatory framework and industry culture, creating a more accountable system.
The proposed Bill will put in place an enhanced safety framework for higher-risk buildings, taking forward the recommendations from Dame Judith’s review. This framework will include a new regulator, clearer accountability and duties for duty holders. The Bill will also ensure that the residents of high-rise buildings have a stronger voice, alongside giving them better access to safety information about their building, clarifying their rights and providing recourse to raise safety concerns directly to the building safety regulator. The pre-legislative scrutiny for that Bill is currently under way. I am determined that we will bring forward as soon as possible after that process concludes a Bill that reflects views and expertise from across this House and expert advice from beyond.
At present, there are differing interpretations of the existing fire safety order on whether the external walls and, to a lesser extent, the individual flat entrance doors fall within the scope of the order. This ambiguity is leading to inconsistency in operational practice. This is unhelpful at best; at worst, it means that the full identification and management of fire safety risks is compromised, which could put the lives of residents at risk.
This Fire Safety Bill clarifies that the fire safety order does apply to the structure, external walls—including cladding and balconies—and individual flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings. This clarification will also ensure that fire and rescue services can confidently take enforcement action and hold building owners or managers to account if they are not compliant with their duties under the FSO. Clarifying the scope of the fire safety order through this Bill will also pave the way for the Government to bring forward subsequent secondary legislation to deliver on the Grenfell recommendations. I will return to this later.
I wish to clarify a couple of detailed points about Clause 1 before I explain Clauses 2 and 3. First, Members in the other place and industry representatives have raised as an issue the express inclusion of “structure” in the Bill. The concern is that this term will mean that structural assessments should more routinely be carried out as part of fire-risk assessments. I assure noble Lords that that is not the case. The intention, as set out in guidance, is that this should be a visual inspection of the construction and layout of the building on the basis that it will have been built to resist early structural collapse in the event of a fire.
As such, although dependent on the circumstances in any particular case, intrusive surveys of buildings are likely to be required rarely and only on the basis that the fire risk assessor has serious concerns about the risks that the structure of the building could pose. Otherwise, non-intrusive surveys should normally be carried out. This will be set out in a fact sheet that we will publish and will be reflected in the industry-recognised guidance.
Secondly, some fire and rescue services have also asked for clarification on what is meant by “common parts” in the Fire Safety Bill. The fire safety order applies to all premises and to all parts of premises unless they are expressly excluded by Article 6. One such exclusion is for “domestic premises”, for which the definition includes parts of the domestic premises that are
“not used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling”.
This has led to some confusion about which parts of the overall building are covered by the order. I can clarify that walls and structure are expressly within the scope of the FSO, and that “common parts” applies whether they are “used” by residents or not. An example of a common part that could be routinely used by residents might be a communal area that is immediately outside flat entrance doors. An example of a common part not frequently accessed by residents could be a boiler room.
Clause 2 provides the Secretary of State with a regulation-making power to amend or clarify the premises that fall within the scope of the fire safety order. Through this, we will be able to respond quickly to any further developments in the design and construction of buildings and our understanding of the combustibility/fire risk of construction products.
The territorial extent of the Bill is set out in Clause 3. The fire safety order extends and applies to England and Wales. The order, and therefore the Bill, relates to matters within the legislative competence of the Senedd Cymru, or Welsh Assembly. This matter will be put before the Welsh Assembly for a legislative consent Motion in relation to these provisions on 6 October.
Finally, the Bill will provide a power to commence the provisions of the Bill on “different days for different purposes”. This acknowledges the operational implications of this Bill, in particular the potentially significant number of responsible persons who will need to review and update their fire risk assessments. For many, that will require specialist knowledge and expertise from competent professionals who can advise on the fire safety risks for external wall systems.
In recognising these operational implications, the Home Office established a task and finish group, which is chaired jointly by the Fire Sector Federation and the National Fire Chiefs Council. It includes representatives from local authorities, private sector housing developers, the fire sector and fire and rescue services. We are currently considering their advice, which we received earlier this week, and I intend to set out the Government’s position on how they will commence the Fire Safety Bill to this House in Committee.
As I just mentioned, we recognise that there are capacity issues relating to fire risk assessors and concerns around competence. It will be helpful to touch on the measures that we are taking to address them. Significant work has been undertaken within the MHCLG-led building safety programme by the industry-led competency steering group—in particular, its sub-working groups on fire risk assessors and fire engineers—to look at ways to increase competence and capacity in the industry, which proposes recommendations in relation to third-party accreditation and a competence framework for fire- risk assessors. The final report from the CSG will be published next week, and MHCLG, the HSE and the Home Office will consider the recommendations of the report in detail.
It is extremely welcome that there is a shared commitment across all parties to implement the recommendations of the inquiry and legislate where necessary. That commitment bears repeating: we will honour the memory of those who died in that appalling fire and implement the Grenfell inquiry recommendations in full.
On 20 July, the Government launched a consultation that included proposals to implement the recommendations and further strengthen the fire safety order. The consultation closes on 12 October 2020.
It is important to deliver the Fire Safety Bill first, then subsequently the secondary legislation taking forward the outcomes of the fire safety consultation. This is a matter of sequencing to ensure that we consult the relevant parties appropriately on the measures we propose, which in a number of areas go further than the inquiry’s recommendations. It will mean that the legislation will be informed and properly enacted. It is in everyone’s interest that we get this right. The Government will bring forward the necessary secondary legislation as early as practicable following commencement of the Fire Safety Bill.
Nothing can bring back those who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy. Nothing can undo the errors that led to their deaths. Yet, if anything is to come from this disaster, let it be the lessons we have learned from those errors and our solemn determination to ensure that they can never happen again.
I spoke earlier of how proud I was in taking this Bill forward. Legislation alone can never have all the answers, but this, the first Bill since the Grenfell fire, will, I believe, make a significant contribution to protecting residents in multi-occupancy buildings from the dangers of fire. I commend it to the House and I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have direct personal experience of this area of local government responsibilities. Following the tragedy at Grenfell, not only was I the leader of Newport City Council at that time but Newport was the only council in Wales that had social tenants in high-rise buildings covered in ACM cladding, and one of those tower blocks was in my ward.
The tragedy at Grenfell has prompted extensive inquiries, research and debate about the steps that might be needed to minimise the risk of such a tragedy happening again. Much of that has concentrated on the fabric and construction of high-rise residential buildings because the materials and techniques used in constructing and renovating Grenfell Tower have been implicated in allowing the fire to spread so rapidly. That in turn will mean changes to the system of building control, which regulates how and with what materials buildings must be constructed.
I commend the actions in the Bill because I have first-hand experience of the benefits that can be secured when registered social landlords, such as Newport City Homes, act appropriately and respond to their responsibilities to manage and reduce the risk of fire in multi-occupied buildings. Within six months of the tragedy at Grenfell, the three tower blocks clad in ACM in Newport had sprinklers installed and, within a year, the work to remove and replace the ACM cladding had begun. This was achieved through pragmatic partnership working between the council, the housing association Newport City Homes, Senedd Cymru and South Wales Fire and Rescue Service.
Responsible landlords should already be conducting regular inspections of buildings with the local fire and rescue services, ensuring that evacuation plans are reviewed and regularly updated and personal evacuation plans are in place for residents, providing fire safety instructions to residents in a form that they can reasonably be expected to understand, and ensuring that the building complies with current standards. That is why I agree with the Fire Brigades Union that the Bill is the first—long overdue—piece of primary legislation that seeks to rectify the failures identified after the Grenfell Tower fire. The FBU has raised concerns with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 since it was imposed. It is clear that many “responsible persons” who own and manage residential premises have not assessed the fire risks in their buildings, nor introduced sufficient measures to keep people safe in their homes.
It is the Welsh Government’s intention to bring forward a White Paper for consultation by the end of this current term and the analysis of this consultation will be available to inform any new Government bringing forward primary legislation in this vital area. These reforms build on the work set out by the Welsh Government’s Building Safety Expert Group in its report, A Road Map to Safer Buildings in Wales. The remit of the group was to identify the parameters of a Welsh response to the issues raised by Dame Judith Hackitt’s report, Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety.
In the immediate aftermath of Grenfell, the primary focus was on aluminium composite material—ACM—cladding systems, which had been implicated in the propagation of the fire. In Wales, we have made good progress in relation to remediation of buildings with ACM cladding. There were 15 buildings with non-compliant cladding, all of which have been remediated or have plans in place. We have been able to develop and maintain relationships with building owners and managing agents to ensure an open and honest dialogue about progress. No leaseholders will have to pay for remediation works in relation to ACM cladding. In addition, the Building Regulations 2010 have been amended to ban the use of all combustible cladding on residential buildings over 18 metres in height. The ban applies to combustible cladding on all new residential buildings and where renovation works take place, including flats, student accommodation, care homes and hospitals over 18 metres high. The ban ensures that ACM and other potentially dangerous cladding cannot be used on tall buildings in the future.
The Welsh Government have worked closely with the Home Office on this Bill. It significantly expands the fire safety order’s coverage of blocks of flats, in particular to include the external walls and internal doors that were so clearly implicated in the spread of the Grenfell Tower fire. They have also been working with the social landlord sector through Community Housing Cymru to develop and trial work in relation to resident engagement and sharing of building safety information. Safety First in Housing intends to support those managing buildings to put in place helpful measures ahead of legislation that will allow genuine engagement with residents, and I urge the UK Government to follow this lead in resident engagement.
Newport City Homes had to take the original contractors of the cladding to adjudication to recover its costs to make the building safe. The reality is that flammable material should never have been put on the outside of buildings, and the contractors and developers who allowed this to happen should rectify matters.
The Welsh Government intend to take the opportunity to establish two new regulatory regimes for Wales. The proposed fire safety regime will build on the existing fire safety legislation and will cover all residential buildings containing more than one dwelling. That goes significantly further than the Home Office proposals for England. It intends to establish a new regime focused solely on fire safety in domestic dwellings, unlike the current fire legislation that blurs the focus of workplaces and residential buildings. The Welsh Government also intend to establish a building safety regime for purpose-built high-rise blocks of flats. This will incorporate the fire safety regime but will look across the whole life cycle of buildings, putting in place additional requirements on those designing and constructing high-rise residential buildings, all the way through to the way in which they are managed and maintained during occupation.
Dame Judith Hackitt’s review identified competence issues throughout the system. It found that there was no clear set of competence standards or expectations for many of the professionals involved in the design and construction of fire-safe buildings or the maintenance of fire safety in occupied buildings. Her recommendations apply across the UK. Building industry action to develop more robust approaches is welcome, in order to make the improvements necessary to ensure that competence is clearly embedded within the professions that make up the construction industry.
Dame Judith was clear that information, from inception to occupation, is key to overseeing the ongoing safety of buildings. It allows buildings to be constructed safely and managed appropriately when occupied. Her proposals for a “golden thread” of building information not only are the basis of the information and data required during the gateway process as buildings are designed and constructed but flow through to the occupation stage. The golden thread will be comprehensive and include full as-built plans, a construction control plan and a fire and emergency file, and culminate in the safety case, which articulates how structural and fire risks will be managed and mitigated against. The safety case identifies the potential hazards in the building and considers how these might be reduced and mitigated against. The findings of these considerations should be recorded and acted upon. Evaluating and reviewing the success of mitigating actions should be monitored, and the processes of reviewing and assessing hazards undertaken on an ongoing basis. The golden thread is a live document—in effect, the user’s manual for the building.
Buildings must be designed and constructed in a way that ensures they are as safe as they can be. This is more than health and safety on a building site, and more than ensuring that there is fire-fighting equipment in an emergency. It is not only about ensuring that the design complies with building regulations safety requirements but that the intention is delivered in the finished product. This means making sure that safety features are properly installed in the right places, using the right materials and standards, by persons who are competent.
In conclusion, the Bill goes a good way to redressing the gaps in controls and provisions that led to the tragic loss of life at Grenfell Tower but I ask the Minister to ensure that no positive opportunity is overlooked when reviewing the steps available to get the Bill absolutely right for the future safety of our citizens, wherever they live in the UK, and to acknowledge and learn from the stronger steps that other Governments are putting in place for public safety.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is right that we should remember the 72 victims of the Grenfell fire, their families and neighbours. It is right that we should remember the first responders, the emergency services, the public servants and volunteers, who came forward to help and have been helping in the weeks, months and now years since. We also need to remember the righteous anger and deep frustration of that community as more time has passed and more compelling evidence has come to light about the institutional and corporate failures that caused this fire. We must make sure that it never happens again.
I know the Minister takes this issue deeply seriously and I very much welcome his remarks in introducing this Bill. I know that his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, did so as well and I look forward to hearing his words in a few minutes’ time. I thank the Minister for reaching out to those on the other side of the House to gain a broad consensus for this Bill and to make sure that the foundations are firmly laid and progress made briskly. We support the Bill, but it is a matter of regret that it has taken 38 months since the fire to bring it to your Lordships’ House. It will be another four months at least before the building safety Bill reaches us.
Meanwhile, that compelling evidence of failure mounts up. I give just two illustrations from the last couple of weeks of Grenfell inquiry evidence. Last week, the project manager of the cladding subcontractor told the inquiry that he had no knowledge of the existence of key product safety regulations relating to the cladding he was installing. Yesterday, the senior building control officer at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea told the inquiry that he had received no training in technical industry guidance and had not considered at all the lessons about the fire risks of cladding systems. The brutal reality is that the only people who noticed what was going on were the residents of Grenfell Tower and they were dismissed as malcontents and trouble- makers. That must never be the case again.
That is the context in which the Minister has brought forward the Fire Safety Bill today. I thank him for setting out so clearly what it is intended to do when it comes into force and for making the point very clearly that it is a start, not the finished product. I thank him too for the letter that he circulated to your Lordships today that sets out other measures that the Government have taken and plan to take.
The Liberal Democrats certainly support the Bill’s intention and will be supporting it in its passage through your Lordships’ House. It plugs some gaps and removes ambiguities and, crucially, it makes a named individual responsible for fire safety reports in every building in England and Wales, regardless of its height. There will be a formal assessment.
This Bill has thoroughly good intentions, which we support, but we should also be quite clear that it would not have stopped the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire. That would require not only this Bill but also the building safety Bill to come into force urgently. It will require a complete change in the culture of building safety from the construction industry, clients and building owners, designers and contractors, national and local regulators and building users too. It is going to require a massive investment in the training of fire engineers and fire assessors and of all those in the industry who, up to the night of the Grenfell fire, had just been winging it and keeping their fingers crossed. At every step of design and procurement and every level of contracting and subcontracting, there have turned out to be fatal gaps in knowledge and skills that must be plugged. The Government have a serious responsibility to enable, facilitate and drive that process relentlessly.
In considering this Bill, I and my colleagues will be urging the Minister not to confine himself simply to the routine task of steering an uncontroversial Bill on to the statute book, but to undertake to put a rocket booster under the process of delivering a complete package of reform. I hope that he will take back to the Government the intense concern from right across your Lordships’ House on all the progress needed to make sure that things happen “at pace”. That catchphrase has been used repeatedly over the last three years from the Dispatch Box and we need to see it happening, not just in the Home Office, where this Bill sits, but also in MHCLG in relation to regulations, in BEIS in relation to the Construction Leadership Council and the work it is doing, and, indeed, in the Department for Education on apprentice training and graduate training to fill some of the gaps in knowledge and manpower.
The reform the whole building regulatory system, the proper staffing and training of qualified personnel to operate that system and the restoration of confidence of local communities caught in the eye of the storm all remain to be done three years after the fire. We take this Bill as some evidence of progress but it is also, to some extent, evidence of delay so I hope the Minister will convey the sense of concern in this House and the anger of local communities right to the very highest level of government, to which, I know, he has good personal access.
I have some questions. Will the Minister undertake to provide your Lordships with a detailed report on the number of fire engineers the Government estimate will be needed to properly deliver the regulatory system set out in the Bill? Can he tell us what estimate he has of the current shortfall and the steps he is putting in place to overcome it? Does the Minister share my fear that the implementation of the Bill will have to be delayed because of that shortfall? Has he taken note of the fall in the number of fire safety officers employed by fire and rescue services in the last 20 years? Does he believe that the current number is sufficient to take on the new duties that the Bill sets out? Perhaps he can say a little more about that. Can he confirm that there is to be a publicly accessible register of all fire assessments?
I know that the Minister will want to honour the often-repeated promise that tenants and residents would be at the heart of the new post-Grenfell regulatory system, with their concerns and their practical experience of day-to-day life in their own home being taken seriously. Does he agree that every one of them should be able to read a copy of the assessment for their block and be told exactly who is responsible for monitoring the risks and delivering the necessary changes? That needs to be a person with actual responsibility, not a distant corporate body registered in the Cayman Islands or an anonymous helpline. We must never again have residents’ legitimate concerns ignored or simply dismissed as troublemaking. We shall certainly want to return to this in Committee.
I am sure the Minister will have read the useful briefing prepared by the LGA, setting out its concerns about some of the practical matters of implementation. It is not at all surprising that, in view of the cuts local authorities have suffered to their income because of Covid-19, they have also raised serious concerns about where the cost of inspection and enforcement is planned to fall. No doubt other noble Lords will expand on that point in the debate.
The Bill is wholly silent on the question of costs and the impact assessment is vague too. The struggle to safeguard leaseholders and tenants who face huge bills directly arising from the replacement of ACM shows just how easily the individuals with no prior knowledge or professional background get left carrying the can, while the contractors and the paid professionals just move on to the next job.
What are the Government’s intentions when it comes to meeting the costs of any remediation that the Bill shows is necessary? Has the Minister any assessment of what those costs are likely to be? How does he intend to safeguard leaseholders against being saddled with yet another huge bill caused, as they might see it, not by them doing something wrong but by a new piece of well-meaning legislation dumped on their heads?
The Minister may feel that these are small details and that we should focus instead on the bigger picture, but I say, as a former Minister, that it is often the small details that trip up and spoil the big picture. Even more to the point, if we look at the big picture, this Bill is not the big picture; it is a small part of a much bigger picture, where reform and challenge is urgently needed to put right past wrongs and prevent future tragedies.
So we do welcome this Bill, but it has to be seen as only a small step in a long journey, one that has taken a long time to get started, where the pace is still too slow and the urgency to bring forward legislation seems to have been somewhat lacking. Those 72 Grenfell residents and their families and neighbours have waited far too long to see justice and to see meaningful change and action. I very much hope that the debate today can put some extra energy back into the campaign to achieve that change.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is the very greatest honour to have been appointed to your Lordships’ House and to be speaking here for the first time. I express my thanks to the Prime Minister for nominating me and to the doorkeepers, the staff and all those who have made me feel so welcome over the last two weeks. They are very special people who are working here for us, especially given the circumstances and the current risks that everybody faces, and we should be very grateful to them.
I am very proud that three of the last four Members of Parliament for Arundel are, or have recently been, Members of this House. I am proud to be joining my predecessor but one as the Member of Parliament for Arundel and South Downs, my noble friend Lord Flight, and sad that my predecessor but two, Lord Luce, retired from this House just before I joined it. I was hoping that the three of us might be able to be photographed together: how many other parliamentary constituencies can claim such a record?
I have taken the title Lord Herbert of South Downs because my constituency, which I was proud to represent for 15 years, is called Arundel and South Downs. I still live in Arundel and still enjoy, every week, the beauty of the South Downs, one of the finest parts of this country and the most beautiful landscapes. It expresses the great love I have always had for the countryside, a passion that I will continue to have, and I hope to promote its interests while a Member of your Lordships’ House.
I have the honour to be the chairman of the Countryside Alliance, a position that I have noted in the register. It was there, or at least in its precursor organisation, that, a very long time ago, I met my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who was my lead supporter when I was introduced in this place. It was he who insisted that I should wear robes, pointing out that that was provided for under the Standing Orders of the House. It is a practice that I understand has taken place since 1621, and I was very proud to do so.
I met my other supporter, my noble friend Lord Hill, in my first job, when I became a member of the Conservative Research Department just after leaving university. I was given the job by my noble friend Lord Lexden. I think he was and remains surprised that he gave me the job, and he seemed similarly surprised that I had arrived in your Lordships’ House, but I owe him a very great debt in that, 35 years ago, he had the confidence in me to launch me on my political career.
I arrive in your Lordships’ House to discover that, of course, it is very different to the other place; but it is also very different to the place it was just a few months ago, because of the way proceedings are conducted. I am full of admiration for the way your Lordships are grappling with new technology so as to speak remotely and vote electronically. Indeed, I remarked to a friend in the United States, a former ambassador, that he might see it as a double constitutional outrage that I had been appointed a legislator for life and that I was now voting remotely, not even present in the Chamber. He nodded and smiled and said, “Yes, that is what we fought the War of Independence about.” I hope that it will not be long before we are able to return to the previous practice of being present in this House.
Of course, one should not believe that age is any impediment to using new technology. My elderly parents, in common with many others of their generation, have become fiends in the use of personal phones and iPads. We encouraged my mother to begin texting and she started to do so voraciously. I recall sitting on the Front Bench in the other place when I received a message from my mother to say that I should call her urgently. I texted back to say that I was sitting on the Front Bench and therefore unable to do so. “Yes”, she replied by text, “I can see that you are on the Front Bench. I am your mother. I would like you to call me now.” I made my excuses and went out of the Chamber, expecting that something terrible or dramatic had happened. I called, only for my mother to ask if I would be there for lunch on Sunday. These are the imperatives of life.
It is a very great pleasure to be able to rejoin the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights, which I founded, along with many Members here and in the other place, and had the honour to chair. I will be chairing the Government’s international LGBT+ conference, which has unfortunately been postponed because of Covid but will, I hope, be held in some form next year. I continue to chair the Global Equality Caucus of parliamentarians around the world who are united in the belief in the importance of equality and ensuring that everybody is treated with dignity and respect according to their fundamental human rights.
I have also rejoined the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Tuberculosis and will now be resuming my co-chairmanship of that group. I also founded that group when, 15 years ago, I visited Kenya and learned about a disease called tuberculosis, the orphan of diseases, in that it is so little talked about, yet it is still, despite Covid, the world’s deadliest infectious disease. Tragically, Covid has now killed 1 million people worldwide, but tuberculosis still kills 1.5 million people every single year and will do for many years to come unless we find a vaccine, unless we find new tools and unless we renew our determination to beat it. We do not face a choice between tackling these infectious diseases; we must learn the importance of global health security. I will also continue to chair the Global TB Caucus, trying to mobilise parliamentarians from around the world to take action to ensure that people can beat this terrible disease.
I was appointed a Minister in the Home Office and in the Ministry of Justice. It is not always easy to be a Minister in two departments, as I am sure my noble friend the Minister is discovering. I soon realised that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are very different places. One notable difference was the lifts. Ministry of Justice lifts are much smarter than Home Office lifts; I will make no comment about them. But I was shown a button by my private secretary and given a code to key in. If I did so, the lift would immediately come down or up to me to ensure that I could get in it very quickly and rush off to vote.
I thought that I would try out this process when no one else was around. I keyed in the code and the lift hurtled down to my floor. The doors opened and out stepped the then Lord Chancellor—now my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham—my boss, who said that a sign had come up in the lift saying, “This lift is now under ministerial control”. However, it was not under his control, and indeed we discovered that very little was when we were in the department. He asked me what on earth could have happened and I suggested that he took the matter up with the Permanent Secretary. I did not own up that I had seized command of his lift.
I will continue to take the closest interest in matters to do with policing and criminal justice. I have recently set up a Commission for Smart Government, whose members include noble Lords from all sides of this House. It is focused on how we can make government more effective. One thing that we want to do is to look at how any Government can ensure that they are able to deliver. In the end, that is the imperative for Governments. I am reminded of one thing that a previous Lord Herbert—Lord Herbert of Cherbury, a poet, soldier, Member of Parliament and brother of the poet George Herbert—said in the 16th century:
“The shortest answer is doing.”
That is a motto that any politician, and certainly any Government, would do very well to remember. In the end, people will judge us not by what we say or promise but by what we do and are able to deliver. There can surely be no more important task for any Government than to make their people safe, and that is why this Bill is so important and why I am so pleased to be able to speak at Second Reading today on this short but important piece of legislation.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say something about the Bill and the Grenfell disaster. The tower was built in 1974—it is, or was, younger than almost every Member of your Lordships’ House. It was not an old building but a relatively new one. The truth is that many wealthy people around the world live in tower blocks, but it would be surprising if they had faced the same situation or the same risk, because the towers in which they live would have been equipped in a very different way. That is the truth of the matter. It is right that we now take every step to ensure that no tragedy of the kind that we saw at Grenfell, in which 72 people lost their lives, could ever happen again.
At the root of what happened, an injustice was revealed—a social injustice about the conditions in which some people were living and in which others would never have considered living. That, in the end, is why there is a wider agenda to level up in this country. It is an agenda that the Prime Minister has fully committed himself to, and it is one that I will proudly support.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have been treated to a maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs of great weight and great good humour. It had valuable insights on many issues—for example, on the countryside, on new technology and, indeed, on my noble friend Lord Mancroft.
My noble friend comes to us with a distinguished and formidable record in the other place, particularly on rural issues, on policing and on criminal justice. Indeed, he was a Minister for policing and for criminal justice in the other place. I am sure that we all look forward to him participating fully in the activities of the House. I know that he will take a particular interest in issues involving the countryside, equality, the operation of democracy and combating tuberculosis. We all wish him well in his future here. I am sure that it will be a long and distinguished one. On a personal note, I also wish him well with my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham when he catches up with the debate.
Turning to the Fire Safety Bill, first, I thank the Minister for his introduction. I know that he takes matters concerning Grenfell and fire safety more widely very seriously. I also know that he was the leader of an adjoining council, so he knows the local situation very well.
We all recall the early morning of 14 June 2017 very well. It is seared on our memories. It represented, in human terms, the greatest loss of life in a residential fire since World War Two, with the loss of 72 lives— 72 lives that should not have been lost. Our thoughts are always with the families and survivors, and with the people who, since the fire, have consistently offered, in human terms, their all. I refer to the public services, particularly the fire service, people in the local community and in faith communities, and officials from government, particularly from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I was a Minister in the department at the time, so I have awful, but very clear, recollections of that night, as, I know, do many noble Lords who are participating in this debate.
It is right that we say that there will be a memorial on the site of the Grenfell Tower in due course and that the local community—Grenfell United and others—will be leading on that. It is also right that the greatest memorial that we can offer the people of Grenfell and those who have fought since the fire to right that wrong is a legacy that ensures that this can never happen again. The Government have, quite rightly, moved in many ways—with the independent inquiry under judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick and with the regulations review of building safety led by Dame Judith Hackitt. We still await news on criminal prosecutions. Although I recognise that this is, in a sense, quite separate from government, we have given—and I was able to give—information and publish how many people had been interviewed under caution in relation to this matter. The Minister might not have details of that to hand. If he does not, I would appreciate it if he were able to write to me saying something on this matter, with a copy being sent to other participants in this debate and placed in the Library. Understandably, responsibility for what happened that night remains a very real concern.
The Government have also moved to put in place fire protection measures, and the use of combustible ACM has, quite rightly, been banned. The remediation of unsafe buildings is happening, but herein lies the rub. I suspect that we all agree on what needs to happen —I cannot imagine that there is any great difference on that—but the issue is the speed with which it is happening and needs to happen.
Understandably, there was a time when interim safety measures needed to be put in place—but that surely was only for the interim. The very use of the word “interim”, which we continue to use as a Government and as a country, indicates that we are not there yet, so I shall press the Minister on this. The key issue here is speed in remedying what needs to be remedied. I think that he mentioned that 74% of building remediation had been started or completed in relation to the removal of ACM. Is he able to give the percentage for the amount that has been completed, rather than started or completed? That would be a very useful statistic for us look at.
The Queen’s speech quite rightly committed the Government to two Bills. We have heard quite a lot from the Minister about the draft building safety Bill, and we have also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, about remediation measures in Wales put in place by Senedd Cymru. I again emphasise to the Minister that it is useful to work alongside the devolved Administrations, particularly in this instance with Wales. I am sure that is happening, but it would be useful to know what lessons and partnership work are going on with Wales, so that we can tackle these scourges together—because I am sure that the aim is one of unity in terms of what we need to do.
Unsurprisingly, I am a strong supporter of the Bill. I am pleased that we are dealing with the ambiguity of what is covered by the term “building” and that it will cover external walls, and therefore cladding, flat entrance doors, balconies and so on. It is obviously right that we have that clarity. I also very much support there being a responsible person for each building to take forward responsibility for this and to make sure that we act in the right way. These are aims that I am sure we can all support. But I come back to the issue of speed. We keep saying “at pace”, but it needs now to be not a moderate pace but a fast pace. I am sure that we all have that haunting thought that we do not want to see anything like Grenfell ever again. The way that we can prevent that is by moving at a fast pace in terms of removal of cladding, and in the admirable array of things that the Government are doing. The only thing they need do now is accelerate that.
One issue that has not been touched on yet was discussed in the other place when my honourable friend Sir David Amess moved an amendment on electrical safety. I thank Electrical Safety First, which has provided me with a valuable briefing on this. It is important to note on this issue that, although our focus is quite rightly on ACM cladding, which certainly led to the spread of the fire—there is no doubt about that—nevertheless the trigger for the fire, as it has been in many other fires, was an electrical fault, as it was at Lakanal House and Shepherd’s Court, where there was another serious fire, although thankfully not one that led to fatalities. Over 14,000 fires a year are caused by electrical faults, so I will be pressing the Minister on what we are doing with regard to checking the safety of flats in tower blocks, of which there are hundreds of thousands, to ensure that electrical appliances are periodically checked for safety. That will minimise the risk of electrical fires, and it is something we could usefully do. I look forward to looking at this in more detail perhaps in Committee. In the meantime, I would be interested in what the Minister has to say.
In short, I strongly support the Bill, as I am sure I will the building safety Bill. My one real concern is pace. It needs to be fast, and we need to accelerate now. As the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said, it is now some 34 months since the fire, and we must move quickly. Otherwise, I will be pressing the issue of electrical safety. But I know that the Minister is totally committed to this, as is my right honourable friend in the other place James Brokenshire. I look forward to working with them and others to make sure that we have a piece of legislation of which we can all be proud and which I am sure we will improve in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, and welcome him to this House. I look forward to his future contributions. It is also an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. When he was a Minister he took very seriously the responsibilities which arose following the Grenfell fire, some of which we are debating today.
The fact remains that it is three years since Grenfell and 11 years since Lakanal House, and this is the first piece of substantive legislation that has been before Parliament. It is needed. We need to resolve the ambiguities in the fire safety order and clearly define responsible officers, their work and the parts of the building which will be subject to their responsibilities and to professional inspection.
I know that the Minister tried to do this to some extent in his opening remarks and in the letter that we received today, but we needed a report on the totality of progress on all of these issues post Grenfell, so that we could see where this Bill fits in with other initiatives. We have referred to the building safety Bill, which is still in very early draft form. Some people are saying that there is a clash of definitions of “responsible person” between that draft Bill and the Bill before us today. We must be clearer about how this all fits in with the Government’s consultation Building a Safer Future, the related safety strategy proposed by the Minister’s department, the implementation of the inquiry’s first stage and of the Hackitt report, and the progress on the proposed new regulator.
Specifically in the Grenfell case, we also need an indication of progress on potential prosecutions of the managers of the building and the suppliers. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to the evidence reported in the press today about the person who would be deemed to be something like the responsible officer in Kensington and Chelsea, who clearly did not have a clue about their responsibilities and the regulations. The same applied to the representative of the major supplier. This is not an overregulated industry but a seriously underregulated industry, and those regulations that exist are not properly enforced. We need to look at all these aspects together, and some others as well.
My noble friend Lady Wilcox referred to sprinklers and the progress there. The case is not the same in Wales as it is in many authorities around England. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, referred to electrical safety, and rightly said that the majority of domestic fires are caused by electrical faults. Inspection and enforcement of regulations in that area are also necessary. Whereas with gas there is a mandatory responsibility on landlords to inspect the gas installations, there is not one for white goods and other electrical installations within multi-occupied buildings more generally.
There is also some obscurity as to which pieces of legislation apply to which buildings. This Bill apparently applies to all multi-occupied buildings, whereas some of the other proposed legislation and regulation applies to buildings over 18 metres high, and that limit has been queried. We are also unclear as to how many buildings and landlords we are referring to. In the impact assessment for this Bill there is a pretty wide range of figures for buildings—2.2 to 3.2 million individual flats—and for the number of landlords, both private and social. So the House deserves a much more strategic report from Ministers on this whole area.
There are also wider issues. At the end of the day, whatever regulations come forward must be professionally enforced, and we must have adequate numbers of professionally trained inspectors. Regrettably, in the fire service there has been a cut of over 20% in recent years. That cut needs to be reversed. In particular, there is nowhere near a sufficient number of qualified and experienced fire inspectors to fulfil the clearer responsibilities in this and the other Bill. The Fire Brigades Union has indicated that there are fewer than 1,000 people who are even remotely qualified to carry out such inspections, which is about half the number there were a decade ago. We need a training programme and a recruitment programme to train up firefighters and others to fulfil these professional roles.
Of course, this may grow, because while in the Bill we are talking about tightening restrictions, the proposed new planning changes will allow, for example, conversion of office blocks to residential use, and adding storeys to existing buildings. If we are not careful, and do not have a robust and effective system of enforcing the use of safe materials and the safe design of the structure of the buildings, that will increase the potential danger of unsafe buildings.
The problem is not only with the fire service and fire inspectors. One of the other areas most drastically cut by many local authorities in the past decade has been building regulations enforcement, and the numbers employed there. The enforcement of standards of materials and the application of materials, as well as of the design of buildings, is clearly inadequate in almost every local authority.
With regard to materials and equipment, it is not just cladding that we should be worried about. There is also, for example, the issue of fire doors. In its briefing for the Bill, the LGA—I declare my interest as one of its vice-chairs—claims that thousands of non-compliant doors have been delivered to local authorities and housing associations in recent years. It estimates the replacement cost at £700 million. That is an absolute scandal. I know of nobody who has been prosecuted for failure to supply compliant doors.
The impact assessment on the Bill makes no mention of the significantly increased resources for both personnel and training that will be required to make it, and related measures, effective in carrying out their job. So there is a significant number of wider questions that we need to address in this context. I will support the Bill; I think it is necessary. But we need a clearer indication of how it fits in with other such measures.
Even in this limited Bill there is a serious omission. We need to mention the role of residents—tenants and leaseholders—and the need for them to be informed, and to have their concerns taken seriously by building owners, managers and suppliers. Let us remember that Grenfell residents were warning of the dangers of the refurbishment years before the tragedy happened—in terms of the cladding, the loss of firewalls and the increasing space for a fire to spread, and also of the potential dangers of the “stay put” evacuation advice. All were pointed to by the residents, and all were ignored.
More widely, the effects of the uncertainty about the safety of the buildings in which they live is causing widespread anxiety among all residents. Leaseholders also face potential substantial economic loss, as the value of their property falls and the availability of affordable insurance recedes because of safety fears. Tenants and leaseholders need to be listened to, and their role needs to be reflected in this Bill and in related legislation.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He said that we needed to see the totality of what the Government are proposing, and also to listen to residents. In both respects, I entirely agree with him. I should declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. May I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, on his excellent maiden speech? We look forward to hearing more of his contributions in the months ahead.
I support this Bill. It brings extra clarity to defining who is responsible for managing the reduction of fire risk for residential buildings in multi-occupation. The proposed clarification of the scope of the 2005 fire safety order is to be welcomed, as it will clearly include building structures, external walls and common areas. I strongly welcome, too, the wish to address problems caused by less resistant entrance doors on some residents’ flats. The proposals in the Bill are measured and proportionate, and while we may wish to examine in Committee issues debated in the House of Commons that were not progressed, it is my view that the Bill should pass.
My noble friend Lord Stunell raised a number of important issues, particularly in relation to the rights of tenants and occupiers of flats in high-rise blocks to be listened to. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made the same point a moment ago. My noble friend also talked about the financial burden faced by many leaseholders through no fault of their own.
As my noble friend also said, this Bill has to be seen in the context of the forthcoming building safety Bill. And may I say that I think it will prove beneficial to have placed that draft Bill into pre-legislative scrutiny? These two Bills are related. Both seek to address systemic deficiencies identified after the appalling Grenfell Tower fire, and to prevent such a tragic ever happening again.
The revelations that we have heard from the inquiry hearings are worrying. They have shown that cost cutting has been too dominant a consideration in building construction of high-rise blocks, and that there have been major failures in the testing of materials and in the enforcement of fire regulations. This Bill is a start in addressing that deficiency. In all respects, public safety and the minimisation of risk must come first.
So the aims of the Bill are very important. But is the Minister confident about delivery? Once this Bill and the building safety Bill are in place, will local government and the fire services have sufficient powers to make this Bill effective? Has there been confirmation of this from organisations affected? I am concerned about, for example, entrance doors in tower blocks. How will responsible persons have enough power to ensure that individual flats owned by leaseholders have adequate fire safety protections, given that their doors join common areas?
Responsible persons are rightly required to review their fire risk assessments, and in buildings with no cladding there is likely to be sufficient professional capacity to assist in undertaking those reviews. But how are responsible persons to get the expert resource necessary to update the fire risk assessments of all buildings that do have external wall cladding systems? Are there enough qualified people to do the job? If not, what are the plans to increase training and, following that, numbers of staff?
I hope that the building safety Bill will be properly integrated with the amended fire safety order, to establish a building safety system that is easy to understand and easy to implement. Doubt about responsibilities must be avoided. For example, it has been suggested that there are differences between the fire safety order’s concept of a responsible person and the proposals for an accountable person and a building safety manager contained in the Government’s response to the Building a Safer Future consultation response. Will the Minister confirm that such differences in interpretation will be avoided, and that clarity will be paramount in the Bill and in regulations?
Since the Grenfell fire, the Government have allocated money to alleviate some of the critical problems related to ACM and other cladding, and they created a building safety fund worth £1 billion in June this year. Despite this, overall spending is low and there is confusion over entitlements. In addition, many owners of flats can face a lengthy wait to sell properties, because surveyors need to get evidence required by mortgage lenders on the construction of their flats, on whether there is external cladding, and on whether there is an external wall survey—which often may not exist.
The situation is not helped by the sheer amount of work to be done, and by the complexity of the responsibility chain, with so many different organisations and tenures involved across the public, voluntary and private sectors. I hope that the Minister understands the urgency of resolving this problem.
I have one final point, which my noble friend Lord Stunell also talked about. I have raised before the issue of whether there should be a public register of fire risk assessments. There is a very strong case for having one, and I raise the issue again, in the hope that the Minister might take a further look at it.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, and I welcome my noble friend Lord Herbert to this House.
On the face of it, this is a straightforward Bill that will clarify the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to better identify and enforce against fire risk in multi-occupied residential buildings. In reality, of course, the situation is far more complicated, for lying behind this piece of legislation is the devastation of the Grenfell Tower fire and the knowledge that 72 people lost their lives simply by virtue of the fact that they were at home at the time. By definition, a home is somewhere that should provide protection, not sow the seeds of a person’s death.
I welcome the Bill, as it will significantly improve the safety of millions of people around the country. It is, however, only one part of a raft of measures to improve standards. There is the building safety Bill, and another key element in this process is the fire safety consultation, which closes in less than a fortnight and includes proposals to implement all the recommendations made by Sir Martin Moore-Bick in his excellent phase 1 report.
I am afraid I do not agree with the argument put forward in the other place that a number of those recommendations should be included in the Bill. As they should, the recommendations incorporate significant change. Sir Martin himself said that it was
“important that they command the support of those who have experience of the matters to which they relate.”
It was therefore essential to consult, not least because the Government are legally obliged to do so, given that the vast majority of the recommendations will require implementation in law.
However, I completely understand the anger and frustration at the lack of pace. As has been mentioned today, it is more than three years since the fire and nearly 12 months since the recommendations were first made. I ask my noble friend the Minister to give a clear timeframe for when and how the recommendations will be implemented. When will the Government respond to the consultation, and when can we expect the regulations that will enable many of the recommendations to be put in place? When does he expect the building safety Bill to be introduced?
Together, these measures will significantly improve fire safety standards. I pay tribute to all those from the Grenfell community, particularly Grenfell United, whose members spend their time campaigning on this issue solely so that what happened to them does not happen to anyone else. At the very least, we owe them some reassurance as to when these much-needed changes will be brought about.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has withdrawn so the next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, on his excellent speech. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
We all know the frightening power and effect of fire. It can cut through the natural and physical environment like a knife through butter, leaving a trail of destruction and devastation, whether in the bushfires of Australia, the forests of California or the ruthless way that it burnt through Grenfell Tower, leaving families mourning loved ones. As the Minister said, we still remember those individuals who so tragically lost their lives.
It is important that we all know the value of fire safety and take necessary precautions to prevent fires. As a head teacher, I would educate the children about the danger of fire and carry out regular fire inspections, even unannounced. The Merseyside fire service was invaluable in coming to talk to children and carrying out fire safety inspections. I fear that reductions in local government finances meant that this was drastically scaled back. Could the Minister inform the House whether it is a statutory responsibility to carry out fire safety checks at schools and colleges, and does that still take place annually?
I welcome the Bill, as I am sure we all do; each and every measure that improves the safety of people who live in high-rise blocks has to be welcomed. However, with its narrow focus on cladding and fire doors, it must be obvious that there are a series of other fire safety issues. Those of us who have followed the painfully slow response to the Grenfell tragedy will have been shocked at the state of a block that had been refurbished and the finger-pointing that is now going on as the inquiry continues.
The excellent Library briefing sets out the exact scope of the Bill. It will
“amend the Fire Safety Order 2005 to clarify that the responsible person or duty-holder for multi-occupied, residential buildings must manage and reduce the risk of fire for … the structure and external walls of the building, including cladding, balconies and windows … entrance doors to individual flats that open into common parts”.
While those two aspects are welcome, they are just two of the many aspects of building safety that need urgent attention.
As I am sure we will hear, the Bill will also enable the Government to introduce secondary legislation. We will also be told of a task and finish group that has been be established to provide a recommendation on how the Bill will be commenced. That the Government are taking advice is welcome, but I urge them to act more quickly than they have in implementing those recommendations in the Hackitt report that do not lead to lengthy consultation. How many of the recommendations have already been implemented? When do the Government plan to implement the Bill once Royal Assent has been granted? What is the timeline for publication of the secondary legislation that will flow from the Bill once it is on the statute book?
During the debate in the other place, the Government referred to the draft building safety Bill, which is partly through the pre-legislative scrutiny stage by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee. That Bill, with many clauses and nearly 200 pages of Explanatory Notes, proposes a major reform of building safety, which is welcome, but it will take many months to reach the statute book and many years to fully implement. The residents of high-rise buildings cannot be expected to wait for years before they are able to go to bed confident that they are safe and sound. When might we expect to be debating that Bill? What is the Government’s schedule?
Fire safety is not restricted to tower blocks, of course. This building, although only three storeys high, represents a particular challenge to the excellent fire safety team that we have. I am aware of the comprehensive work that they are doing to keep us safe. The House of Lords must be unique, not only for the quality of the debates that we have but because of the age of the building with its national treasure status, its amount of wood and the rabbit-warren nature of its many passageways. It demands a high level of planning to prevent a fire or emergency but also to deal with one should such a situation occur.
The Members along my corridor include those who use wheelchairs and guide dogs. Other Members would require varying degrees of assistance to evacuate the building. This Bill, with such a narrow focus, will have no direct impact on us: there is no external cladding other than the scaffolding—which seems to be a permanent feature—and there is no problem with our fire doors, but these are just two elements of a safer building. However, we are all working in a building that requires many safety measures, not simply in order to comply with the law but to keep us safe in the event of fire or emergency.
In concluding, I will make a point about the safety of electrical appliances. The Minister is on record as stating:
“The Government are committed to ensuring that the electrical products that people buy are safe”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/20; col. 442.]
More than 500,000 Hotpoint and Indesit appliances have been recalled, with more machines added as recently as April 2020. As Lesley Rudd, the chief executive of the charity Electrical Safety First, said,
“It is alarming that five months into this recall, we are only now hearing of these extra models which pose a threat to owners.”
This new discovery throws into question the robustness of the original investigation.
Finally, I endorse what the Minister said in his opening remarks. Clearly, he takes this matter seriously. As he says, it is in everybody’s interests to get this right.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs on his excellent maiden speech. We will greatly benefit from his expertise in so many areas. I should also congratulate him on his good fortune in choosing a debate where there is such a relatively generous time limit. I remember well showing him around the other place when he first arrived there in my capacity as a senior Whip. If I were still in that capacity, I might have gently pointed out that he pushed that time limit to the boundaries. However, I am sure that he will be delighted not only to know that your Lordships’ House is a far gentler place but to discover that I am more likely to be a member of the awkward squad these days than an enforcer. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton on such a thoughtful and knowledgeable speech.
I welcome this Bill, and although I am aware that it is not strictly the vehicle to address the very serious issue of electrical safety, I would like to highlight my concerns and those of many others whom we have already heard from—including my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth in an eloquent speech and the noble Lord, Lord Storey—about the fires caused by electricity. Of course, this Bill addresses what happens if a structure is on fire, but we must look at what causes the fire in the first place. Some 57% of house fires are caused by electrical faults. As we have already heard, my esteemed colleague Sir David Amess brought forward an amendment in the other place that seems to me to be eminently sensible.
Over the past three years, accidental electrical fires in high-rise buildings have risen consistently year on year, which is frankly shocking. It is important to state that these fires are not all caused by the appliances themselves but by misuse. In a previous life, I ran my family retail business, including an upholstery department. Noble Lords might well remember that there was rightly a lot of concern about the smoke and danger of certain foam within upholstery. The fires were not caused by the sofas or the chairs themselves; they occurred for other reasons, such as people falling asleep with a lighted cigarette or faulty electrical equipment. Educating people about the dangers is paramount.
We must do whatever we can to avoid the chance of another Grenfell tragedy reoccurring. With the newly created role of responsible person for any high building, that person should also be given the task of compiling a register for all white goods in the building. This would ensure that when a recall occurs—and sometimes they occur a little late, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has just said—anyone with a defective appliance could be quickly alerted and the safety risk resolved. My noble friend told us that he would be bringing forward more measures in the draft building safety Bill. I earnestly hope that this issue will not be ignored there. I cannot think of a better person than my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh to be taking this through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Monks (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest in that, in my long stint at the TUC, I worked closely with the Fire Brigades Union on many issues, including fire safety. I commend to the House today the notes of evidence that have been widely circulated by that union. Some of the points that I will make—and many others have already made them—will reflect some of those made in the FBU’s evidence.
Grenfell, of course, exposed many failings about the fire risks in buildings. Very worryingly, we know that there are plenty of other potential Grenfells still around. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, in his excellent address, got it dead right when he hit upon the issue of inequality: there are plenty of apartment blocks around the world that house the better off in which these problems have never existed. The inequality of the two types of provision is rather stark. This Bill is a welcome step to improve matters, and I am among all those who have spoken so far in support of it.
I want to touch on a number of issues with a view towards improving the Bill. I hope that the Minister will have an open mind to the constructive suggestions that are being made in this debate and will no doubt come up again in Committee. The first concerns resources, as a number of speakers have already said. The number of firefighters has fallen in a decade by 20%. When the Bill’s measures come into force, I pose the question: will there be enough staff and other resources available to cover the new amount of extra work? There are around 4,000 tower blocks for the inspectors and advisers to cover. Looking at the landscapes of many of our cities at the moment, I suggest that there are many more going up, even despite the recessionary period we are in at present. Will there be enough people around with the necessary expertise to handle this increased workload? The FBU is obviously worried about that, and I am interested to learn what the Government think about it.
My second point concerns the impact assessment. It took into account the views of the National Fire Chiefs Council and individual brigades, as I still call them. However, it missed out the FBU, and I would like to know why that was the case. It is in the front line when these fires occur. Like the tenants, its voice needs to be heard and respected. Related to that, can the evidence submitted by the fire and rescue services be published?
Does this Bill cover all houses and other buildings converted into flats, and how will the inspectors prioritise their visits? Will they visit the high rises first? There will also be some conversions around that are in need of some regulation if things are to go well. At the moment, as the Local Government Association has pointed out, there are relatively few fire experts to take on what could be an enormously complex and highly skilled task. What are the plans to recruit and train on a bigger scale?
The impact assessment seems to estimate that the additional cost of the Bill could be up to £2.1 million. Really? Is that the cost of the additional fire safety regime proposed in this Bill? Have I got it right? Do I understand the figures correctly? It certainly seems to be very low, given the enormity of the challenge that people inspecting buildings are likely to have. What are the fire and rescue authorities saying about costs and how they will be apportioned?
Finally, I hope that the Government and the other fire authorities will learn quickly from Grenfell the need to talk to tenants about problems. Residents are as likely as anybody else—and more likely than most—to uncover problems and hazards. They live with them and, unfortunately in the case of Grenfell, they die with them.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, there have been some excellent speeches this afternoon; I will keep my remarks brief and try not to duplicate too much what has been said. First, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, to the House. His was an entertaining and erudite speech and I know that we all enjoyed it.
Poor building regulations and a hopeless inspection regime led to the awful Grenfell tragedy. It is now clear that so many buildings could have suffered a similar fate, with a dreadful loss of human life. Nine out of 10 blocks are failing cladding checks. Here I declare an interest as part owner of one flat in a block still awaiting a test. But how many blocks have been inspected? Today the Minister repeated that all high-rise residential buildings will be inspected or reviewed by the end of next year; that is many months away, and much could happen between now and then. This is not a speedy enough response to an issue that is putting lives at risk. Can the Minister explain why there is such a lack of urgency on this? Also, can he clarify the distinction between inspections and reviews?
There are, as others have said, just 1,100 fire safety inspectors. The number of firefighters has fallen hugely—by 12,000 in just a few years. With the Covid situation meaning that many people’s jobs are in jeopardy, surely this is an opportunity to invest in reskilling people to take on those valuable roles.
Many of the people in these high-rise buildings wish to move, not just because they are fearful for their safety. Growing families needing more space and the pressures created by working from home, meaning that another bedroom-cum-study is required, are just two of the reasons why people living in high-rise flats may wish to move. But they are finding it impossible to sell. As others have remarked, those who normally lend on such properties are refusing—mortgages are simply not available. People could be trapped in their unhappy situation for years if there is not more action to get these buildings cleared or dealt with.
The Government have provided funds to help put right these faulty buildings, but is £1.6 billion ever going to be enough? We know that it will not be. Will the Minister consider how the Australian state of Victoria is dealing with this issue? There have been significant state loans and a new fund, backed by developer levies, to enable owners to put their blocks right. The state government is determined, in pursuing the developers and builders responsible for these faulty buildings through the courts, to get them to pay for their bad work. The state is also making sure that every high-rise building has been inspected. It is then able to prioritise the way in which putting things right is done. Perhaps we in this country could, through local authorities, train up a new battalion of inspectors so that these buildings could be examined quickly, work prioritised and a new fund set up to fund that work, with the Government chasing the guilty through the courts to get them to pay the bills.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and also as co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all 32 London borough councils and the City of London.
I join with other speakers in welcoming the Bill, which is long overdue, and I share their questions and interests. For the sake of brevity, I will not repeat them, but I am looking forward very much to the Minister’s response and to learning a little more about the future proceeding of this Bill and, more particularly, the timetable and consideration for the Bill that will follow it in due course.
I declare another interest today, as a patron of Electrical Safety First, the charity that takes a particular interest in this area. In that context, I welcome very much the points that have already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, my noble friend Lord Storey, and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It is a subject that I am sure we will return to at a later stage, quite probably when we consider the building safety Bill.
I want to say a little more about the subject because it is important here. As others have said, electricity causes more than 14,000 house fires a year. The Grenfell Tower fire was caused by faulty wiring to a fridge-freezer. In 2016, a flaw in a tumble dryer led to a fire at Shepherd’s Court in west London, which ripped through five storeys. The fire at Lakanal House has already been referred to—it was also caused by electricity. There are around 4,000 tower blocks in the UK with nearly half a million flats, so probably more than a million residents live in those tower blocks throughout the United Kingdom.
Electrical Safety First’s analysis of government data shows that accidental electrical fires in high-rise blocks have been steadily increasing between 2006 and 2019. In an excellent article in the Times this morning, the chief executive of Electrical Safety First referred to what she described as
“tenure lottery on safety in tower blocks”,
with
“a mixture of tenure types from privately rented homes, owner occupied and social housing that leaves individual flats bound by different regulations.”
She went on to point out:
“Unless every unit is subject to the same safety regime, the entire block and all those living in it can be put at risk from a single flat.”
Tenants living in the private rented sector are now protected—or soon will be—by mandatory five-yearly electrical safety checks. Indeed, I recall that that provision —the ability to make those regulations—was introduced by amendments from the Government during the Lords stages of the Housing and Planning Bill. I mention that as a hint to the Minister that these opportunities arise and should perhaps be seriously considered and sometimes taken. Surely now is the time, and this Bill the opportunity, to introduce five-yearly mandatory safety checks in tower blocks, regardless of tenure.
As I have already said, the fires at Grenfell Tower, Lakanal House and Shepherd’s Court, all in London, were caused by faulty white goods. Despite the efforts of manufacturers and retailers, consumers are reluctant to register their white goods and to respond to any recalls. This poses an obviously high risk in tower blocks and needs to be addressed. Electrical Safety First has therefore proposed that the newly created role of responsible persons for any high building should be given the task of compiling and maintaining a register of every white good in the building. This would ensure that when a recall occurs, anyone with an affected appliance could be quickly alerted to the recall and encouraged to act on it. This Bill, although intentionally limited in its purpose, provides an appropriate opportunity to do that.
On 7 September, during the Report stage of the Bill in the other place, amendments to give effect to these proposals were moved by the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group, David Amess, to whom reference has already been made. Those amendments received warm support from Members of all parties taking part in that debate. In his reply, the Minister referred to the provisions of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 and to the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020, to which several noble Lords, including me, have already referred. However, he clearly recognised that this did not fully meet the concerns expressed in the debate and went on to say that
“we will look across Government at whether there are any gaps in the current regime and proposals to strengthen accountability in this area … if there are still gaps, we, like so many Members, want to see those filled effectively”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/20; col. 442.]
I and other speakers today have highlighted at least two such gaps and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. The comments in the other place were made over three weeks ago. Can the Minister today give us an update and tell us what gaps the Government have identified so far? When will the Government take the opportunity offered by this Bill and the building safety Bill that will follow to bring amendments to fill those gaps?
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
May I first join with others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs? He is someone I did not have the pleasure of being contemporaneous with in the other place, but who I did have many connections with when he was operating as the public affairs officer for the British Field Sports Society and when he was setting up Countryside Alliance. I am sure that background will be useful in the work he will be doing in our House. His speech was excellent, and I congratulate and welcome him.
I am sure this Bill—though short—is necessary. It follows the terrible events of Grenfell Tower, which other Members have spoken about. It is also a response to the still unacceptable number of fires that occur disproportionately in buildings of over two floors in height—about twice as many as in ordinary homes. Interestingly, where there is the permanent presence of a caretaker or the installation of fire prevention equipment such as sprinklers, as is the case in sheltered housing, the incidence is fortunately much less. This is particularly significant because of the preponderance of more vulnerable and accident-prone residents in such accommodation. I am therefore pleased the Bill places an emphasis not only on the structure and fire resistance of buildings but on the responsibility of individuals.
Whatever such responsibilities are placed on individuals, it becomes necessary for them to be as focused and precise as possible. For instance, identifying and recording accurately and continually who is a building owner or manager is something which will prove a test. How will this be achieved and established, and by whom? This legal liability emanates from the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2018. However, I am not sure it has been shown to be sufficiently robust and reliable. Local fire and rescue services are under pressure at the best of times, especially with the levels of paperwork and administration now required, so the obligation to share information about the design of external premises— walls, for instance—is open to misunderstanding and misapplication if the resources are inadequate.
The responsibility of building owners or managers to undertake regular inspections of flat entrance doors must be rigorously followed up to be of real effect. Deciding who exactly is responsible is critical at all times. I appreciate that leaseholders are excluded from liability, but that simply places a greater priority on being certain of the identity at all times of those who are liable. Again, we come back to proper, easily accessible records being available so that, if it is necessary to pursue matters, this can be done quickly and effectively to ensure something is done to put things right.
I know of the concerns that have already been touched on, from the Fire Brigades Union among others, about the enforceability of these new provisions and how we obtain accurate knowledge of the number and location of premises affected. Sometimes establishing responsibility is tricky, because records are not always clear as to how many landlords there are who should be accountable. Even with the new powers, we will need to train and retain sufficient fire safety officers to carry out the important inspections that are necessary.
In 2018, combustible materials were banned from the construction of high-rise homes. However, as we know, there are many buildings constructed before then where tenants are presently very concerned about when the necessary safety work to restore them will take place. In the meantime, some problems have been identified in refinancing or marketing those properties. I hope that those concerns can be alleviated before too long. While we are discussing the building safety Bill today, it is worth saying that, once that is law, we will have a more substantial and joined-up approach to safety in high-rise residential buildings.
I also appreciate that, as the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry are pursued, we will need a number of pieces of secondary legislation in place. The Minister has already indicated that. I hope that they will deal in particular with matters that have come from the first part of the inquiry. These include: more regular inspections of lifts and lift mechanisms; regular reviews of evacuation plans for buildings and policies in place; educating and informing residents in a clear and understandable fashion, because misunderstandings for residents have led to them being put in extra danger; and of course enforcement of standards of internal flat entrance doors.
At the start of the Second World War, my late father was, for a while, a proud member of the National Fire Service. I have always admired firemen and firewomen and I am still very proud of them in the duties they pursue, which are so much more complicated today. They save lives, sometimes placing themselves in great danger. I know the Minister shares my view and his opening remarks demonstrated his admiration for the fire services. We must in this Bill, and in other attached legislation, do our very best to give those people the appreciation and support that they truly deserve.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, fire safety has become a serious subject in recent times. The Grenfell Tower disaster has shone a light on the subject. The LGA has been calling for councils and fire services to be given effective powers and meaningful sanctions to ensure residents are safe, and feel safe, in their homes. This Bill will be an important step in the right direction. However, there are concerns about the practicalities of the Bill: for example, how it will align with building safety proposals from the MHCLG and the costs imposed on councils and other building owners.
The most important part of the Bill is whether it will protect lives. Local Government must be reimbursed for any additional costs arising out of the changes mandated by this Bill. The Bill is created by the Government and local government and their tenants must not be made to pay for the changes. If the Government do not provide funding, local government will have to raise local taxes.
It is important to state that members of the fire service do heroic work, often putting their own lives in danger. We must not forget the builders who do not follow the rules and use unreliable material which causes fires. Every building must follow the fire officer’s advice and the building rules provided by the local authorities. There must be a close relationship between the fire department and the local authority before planning permission to build is given.
Baroness McDonagh (Lab)
I too welcome the Fire Safety Bill and thank the Minister and the Government for bringing it forward. At this stage, I have more questions than answers after reading it. Perhaps the Minister will bear with me as I go through them: I have five.
The first is on scope and the definition of premises. Clause 1 refers to when
“a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises … the building’s structure and external walls and any common parts”
and
“doors between the domestic premises and common parts”.
In reality, does that apply to an HMO? Many of us who are politically active will now be used to knocking on the doors of terraced houses which housed one family but now house a family in each room, so that there are five or six families. We are all very worried about the safety of these premises. A second HMO-style point is about the growing numbers of houses in multiple occupation through the changes to “Supporting People”. When cuts came to the housing benefits of people with severe physical and learning disabilities in 2011-12, we saw more private landlords housing people with those disabilities in HMO-style properties. They would be vulnerable, so will the scope of the Bill apply to them?
My second question is about impact assessments. My noble friend Lord Monks also asked about this. All legislation is framed and depends on the research put together and the impact assessments. I have found it difficult to find the external impact assessments that went into writing this legislation. It might be that I have not looked in the right places. Can the Minister point me to them and, if they have not yet been published, whether they can be?
My third question is about the number of properties this legislation will apply to. The two assessments I have seen from government are that there could be 1 million properties, or 2 million. I have a bit of an issue with that if we are building capacity for a service. I understand a fluctuation of 5% but not one that can fluctuate by 50%.
My next question, the fourth, is about scaling the number of fire inspectors. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and my noble friend Lord Whitty both asked questions relating to this area. How are these numbers of fire inspectors to be trained and scaled? Can the Minister tell us whether his department envisages that this training will take place via the fire service? Will it be done in large part by firefighters or by the private sector? This matters because it would require us to put standards and training into the Bill if a private-sector supplier, with little experience in this area, was to take on such a responsibility for all our costs. I am not being an ideologue about these matters but we understand that if we get these things wrong, they can go very badly wrong. I know that the Minister will understand the problems there were when the Government privatised the probation service; that service had to be brought back in-house.
We know, too, in this country that outside the public sector few private sector organisations have trained people over time. This is why we have a skills problem in many areas. For example, if I looked for qualified electricians who could work underwater, there are very few left in this country—and they will all be in their late 50s and early 60s, because virtually none have been trained since the Coal Board was disbanded in the 1980s. How we train and supply people will matter.
My last and fifth question is around Grenfell. I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I very much agree with the sentiment he expressed due to the tragedy at Grenfell. However, the Bill will not change now the temporary nature of properties that have such inflammable cladding. I absolutely concur with all the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. Three years on, I do not understand how this matter has not been dealt with or how these premises still have a waking watch. That is a medieval term, from a time when buildings were much more flammable. In the 12th and 13th centuries, the City of London did away with flammable materials such as thatched roofing. It feels incredibly difficult to understand how this has not been addressed after three years. When the Minister comes to address the points that many of us are raising, can he give us a little more detail about the landlords who have not removed the cladding? What type of landlords are they—social, local authority or private sector landlords? Please can we have some more information?
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I too extend my warm welcome to my noble friend Lord Herbert and thank him for his excellent maiden speech. I acknowledge, as others who spoke earlier in the debate did, that along with other major proposals by the Government the Bill is a major step, aimed at preventing disasters such as the horrors of the Grenfell Tower fire. I welcome the Bill’s introduction and its aims.
However, I have some concerns, which I know others share, regarding the practicalities surrounding it—in particular, how it aligns with the MHCLG safety proposals that are being prepared. I also have concerns, as many others have, at the cost that it may impose on councils and other owners of residential buildings. It would be helpful if my noble friend could provide some comments or thoughts on the possible cost of all the proposed works. The Government should not make councils and other freeholders responsible for issues which are beyond their control. To ensure that the aim of the Bill—to protect lives—is successful, national government must reimburse local government for additional costs arising from operational changes mandated by the Bill.
The Bill makes duty holders responsible for fire doors, even if they are owned by leaseholders. Requiring councils to inspect fire doors is likely to prove unworkable in some cases and extremely costly. Duty holders, as referred to in the Bill, are required to review their risk assessments. This task is unlikely to be onerous where buildings do not have external cladding but there is a worry, which my noble friend has acknowledged, that there is insufficient expertise and expert resource to update fire risk assessments for all buildings that have external cladding.
As my noble friend the Minister also mentioned, the Government have set up a task and finish group to look at this issue specifically. We look forward to seeing the results of its deliberations. I believe that there is a severe national shortage of fire engineering expertise. What plans do the Government have to alleviate this problem?
The Government are holding a consultation, which will conclude in October this year, before amending the 2005 fire safety order. MHCLG is preparing the building safety Bill. The Government must provide assurance that that Bill will be fully aligned with the amended 2005 order to create a workable building safety system. There is concern that the effectiveness of the Fire Safety Bill could be undermined by subsequent reforms in the building safety Bill.
There is uncertainty surrounding the relationship between the fire service and the new building regulator to be established under the building safety Bill. The establishment of a national regulator may take staff away from the fire and rescue service. The building safety Bill and the Fire Safety Bill may become overly bureaucratic. Can my noble friend the Minister give an assurance that any new arrangements will not hamper the fire service’s role in ensuring safety in residential buildings?
Earlier in the debate, I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and others raise the issue of the safety of electrical appliances and white goods. I share these concerns and hope that my noble friend the Minister can tell the House whether the checking of appliances is being considered for inclusion in legislation.
Other noble Lords have mentioned an important omission in the Fire Safety Bill: the rights of residents. Nothing in the Bill supports the rights of residents to make complaints or receive a copy, in layman’s language, of the fire risk assessment for their building. Can this important point be addressed?
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as recorded in the register: I am a councillor in Kirklees and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I thank the Minister for our meeting earlier today to discuss the Bill, which is an important step forward in righting the cavalier practices of some of those involved with the construction industry. It is a step in the direction of putting people’s safety first and foremost. We on these Benches welcome it. We welcome the fact that some of the bitter lessons of the Grenfell tragedy, as exposed in the estimable Hackitt report and phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, are being learned and acted on, albeit that it has taken far too long to get this far.
It is a pity that the Bill is not as detailed in its response as I would have hoped. I appreciate that further secondary legislation is expected, but people who live in potentially high-risk buildings need action now, as many noble Lords have said. As my noble friend Lord Stunnell so rightly said, residents need to be at the heart of these changes. While the construction industry builds and moves on, it is the residents who are left carrying the can—and the significant costs of the errors, as my noble friend Lord Shipley pointed out. That is not right and must be put right.
As we have heard, this short Bill seeks to extend the powers of the fire safety order 2005 to include outside walls, including cladding, windows and balconies. This therefore gives a clear duty to responsible persons to assess and manage the fire risk. It provides for powers of enforcement to be given to the fire and rescue authorities. All that is positive. However, as my noble friend Lord Stunell explained, this lack of detail leaves many questions unanswered.
Who will do the fire risk assessments, given that there are so few trained personnel currently? The Fire Brigades Union estimates there are fewer than 1,000 fire safety officers. How will standards be regulated? Will there be a register of fully trained and certified fire assessors? Third-party accreditation of assessors is a vital part of this new regime, and the rapid development of skills courses in colleges and universities is urgently needed to fill the gaps. What do the Government intend to do about that? As many noble Lords across the House have pointed out, this is a deficiency in the Bill. Lives literally depend on accurate and informed fire assessments. I am sure that the Minister will want to demonstrate how this requirement is to be met.
Then there is the question of the building materials used and construction techniques employed. The Hackitt report exposed the lamentable standards that applied prior to Grenfell. How can residents in flats be assured that materials do not breach combustible standards and are thoroughly and completely tested before being deemed fire safe for use? Who will make sure that gaps in ill-fitting window replacements are not filled with inflammable filler? Who is going to make sure that doors opening on to communal areas are fitted properly and not altered?
This Bill gives us the answer as to who will be responsible and accountable but it does not give us the answer as to how this will be achieved, with so few fire assessors and with fire and rescue authorities that have faced budget cuts of 28% in the past 10 years. There is a cost to fire safety. Grenfell brutally and tragically exposed the consequences of cutting safety corners. Can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that the costs of fire safety enforcement will be fully covered?
My noble friend Lord Tope and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, raised concerns about electrical safety, which surely must be considered closely and could have been included in this Bill. Why have the Government failed to respond to the cause of the Grenfell tragedy at the same time as responding to its building failures? I say this to the Minister: if not now, when?
There is a huge task facing fire assessors. Many millions of buildings need to be reassessed. The question then has to be: what guidance will the Government provide to help with prioritisation? Official government guidance will surely be of help to those residents who are trapped in buildings with cladding that does not meet fire standards. Their fear is that they will be unable to sell until they are able to produce a fire safety certificate. I suspect that mortgage providers will similarly be reluctant to provide a loan until the essential work is done.
The building safety Bill, currently in draft form only, refers to buildings over 18 metres high. This Fire Safety Bill includes all dwellings. This is a recipe for confusion when clarity must be at the heart of all safety legislation. Will the Minister ask his colleagues to consider reducing this confusion before that Bill is considered?
I hope the Minister is able to provide answers to satisfy those of us who think that this may well be a lost opportunity to deal with the implications of improving fire safety requirements in all buildings. There is consensus across this House that the Bill will be supported. Unfortunately, there is also consensus that there are omissions and that there is a lack of detail.
The direction of travel is supported, but the route being taken is too slow. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and my noble friend Lord Stunell, raised the importance of accelerating change to show that lessons have been learned, and implemented, from the tragedy of Grenfell. Let us put Grenfell residents at the heart of our thoughts as first steps towards greater safety are taken.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, we remember the 72 people who lost their lives in Grenfell Tower in the fire on the night of 14 June 2017. I pay tribute to the firefighters, and to other emergency services, who acted so bravely on the night of the fire, as well as other contractors, civil servants, local government officials and the wider civil society, including the faith communities who came together with the local community after that terrible night. I join the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in paying tribute to the work that firefighters and other emergency services have done in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.
I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as follows. I am vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and non-executive director of MHS Homes.
At the start of my contribution this afternoon, I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, on his excellent maiden speech. I never served in the other place, but I was able to get a photograph taken here, with the instruction of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, including myself as Lord Kennedy of Southwark from the Labour Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, from the Conservative Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo of Southwark, from the Lib Dem benches. The local paper reported, “Southwark’s got all benches covered”.
The noble Lord brings a wealth of experience to the House with his time as a Home Office Minister in the other place and his career outside Parliament, which will prove to be invaluable in our deliberations on this Bill and many other measures. I agree with the noble Lord’s comments about the conditions some people have to live in and the need to tackle that social injustice. I welcome the noble Lord to the House, and I look forward to getting to know him in the coming weeks and months and to his further contributions to our debates.
I want to place on record my thanks to several organisations for their briefings, which have proved so helpful to me in preparing for this Second Reading debate. These include the Fire Brigades Union, the Local Government Association, the National Housing Federation, Electrical Safety First, the Association of British Insurers and the House of Lords Library.
I also want to make clear, at the start, that the Official Opposition are supportive of this Bill. Our only issues are that we should be going further with greater speed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, made reference to, and that since the fire at Grenfell Tower over three years ago this is the only legislative action that has been taken so far, as my noble friend Lord Whitty pointed out in his contribution. The pace of change in relation to the enormity of the challenge is disappointing. As we seek to make changes to the procedures and the mechanisms in place, a quicker pace is needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton, asked important questions about the timing of much-needed changes. When are they going to be introduced? She also recognised the frustration of many with the pace of change. Professionalism and being properly qualified, certified and accredited to the job have to be themes running through the new regime being put in place. These are not matters that can be done on the cheap or by unqualified or inexperienced people. Those are points I have been making consistently since that terrible night, and I will continue to do so.
We also need a complete change to the attention given by the authorities when residents, tenants and leaseholders raise concerns about safety, so that they are not ignored, as they often are, and as they were by Kensington and Chelsea Council when Grenfell residents raised many times their safety fears. When we get to Committee, I, and other colleagues on these Benches, will propose amendments that we think will make improvements and strengthen the good intention of the Bill.
When the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, responds to the debate, can he please tell me how he sees the Bill, the fire safety order and the building safety Bill all working together effectively to improve building safety when both Bills are Acts of Parliament? We want clarity with respect to roles, responsibilities, duties, liabilities and enforcement, because without that we have the risk of further problems and complications undermining the good intentions of the Government.
One example I would give the noble Lord is that there must be no confusion between the roles and responsibilities of the fire safety order’s responsible person, the new accountable person and the building safety manager, which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, spoke about. Where we have confusion and a lack of clarity, we run the risk of buck-passing, a failure of process and procedure and a risk to people’s safety and their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is right about the need for a complete change of culture, to plug gaps and to be relentless in the pursuit of delivering a complete package of reforms, which are urgently needed.
Turning to the specifics of the Bill, Clause 1, as we have heard, amends article 6 of the fire safety order, and it will apply to premises where the building contains two or more domestic flats. This extension covers the structure and external walls, including doors and windows in those walls and anything attached to those walls, along the common parts of the building, and to the front doors of people’s properties. This is an important clarification, which I welcome.
Some concerns have been raised about when access is needed to inspect the front doors of residents’ properties, along with the windows or possibly balconies, and, when access is not given willingly, the power for the building owner to get access to the property. Will the only process to seek an order from the court? That can be lengthy. I am not convinced it gives the urgency needed for the inspection to take place. For example, you could have access to 50 flats in a block with no problem whatsoever. All the external walls and communal areas are inspected, but there are two flats where access is refused despite repeated requests, so the building cannot be regarded as compliant until a court-granted order is executed, the inspection takes place and everything passes. There must be a better, quicker way to deal with that problem.
This is also a problem for social landlords any type of landlord or building owner. The issue was raised in the other place by the honourable Members for Orpington and Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The Bill also provides for fire and rescue authorities to take enforcement action against responsible persons if they have failed to comply with their duties under the fire safety order, which risks getting bogged down if occupants in one or two properties are not being co-operative.
That also brings me back to a point that I mentioned at the start of my contribution today. Fire inspectors must be professional and properly qualified; there is no doing this role on the cheap. This is a key role in the compliance and enforcement of legal obligations for fire safety duties on responsible persons.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, is right about the need to keep records, so that liabilities are clearly established and it can be demonstrated who has and who has not done their job, and action can be taken to ensure that they do it. We want proper processes and procedures to ensure that residents, tenants and owners are properly aware of all matters with regard to their safety in their home.
The Bill will increase the workload of fire and rescue services. The impact assessment does not specify how many inspectors carry out fire audits and enforcement action in England, but in 2019-20 only 963 staff were competent to carry out full inspections, 706 to serve an enforcement notice and 546 to serve a prohibition notice contract—but we had 1,724 fire safety inspectors two decades ago, as my noble friend Lord Whitty referred to. Clearly, that is a great diminution in the number of people who are able to do this work.
My concern here is that, to bridge the gap between the resource we have at present and the resource we need to deliver the compliance and enforcement orders, corners will be cut and less-qualified or unqualified persons will be given roles that they are not competent to do, instead of proper investment and training to deliver competent officers. If would be good if the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, could assure me that that is not the intention, that only properly qualified people will be used, and that action will be taken to increase the number of qualified inspectors. Can he also assure me that he and his colleagues have a clear understanding of the complexity of the inspections that need to be undertaken?
I suggest that there should be a recruitment programme to increase the number of operational firefighters and fire safety officers in respect of premises covered by this order. There will be an additional cost for these additional inspections and these enforcement actions. Can the noble Lord in his reply to the debate confirm that these costs will be fully funded by the Government and there will not be any fudging on this? It would be wrong to place extra burdens but not fund them or expect the council taxpayer to pick up the costs through a precept levied on them.
Clause 2 provides for a delegated power whereby the Secretary of State in England and the relevant Welsh Minister can change or clarify the types of premises falling within the scope of the order. I am fine with that, and it is good to see that we will be using the affirmative resolution procedure to approve the regulations.
My one area of concern is Clause 2(5), which states that
“the relevant authority must consult anyone that appears to the relevant authority to be appropriate.”
Can the noble Lord give me an assurance that that will include all the fire authorities in England, bodies such as the National Housing Federation, the Local Government Association and relevant local authorities, and not just the National Fire Chiefs Council? I would also want the relevant Welsh Minister to consult with the fire authorities in Wales and bodies such as the Welsh Local Government Association.
My noble friend Lord Monks rightly raised the question of the consultation process and how the view of the Fire Brigades Union will be taken into account. They are the hero firefighters we all praise, so we should be asking them what they think. They are the people who run into Grenfell Tower and other burning buildings when everybody else is trying to get out. Can the noble Lord confirm when he responds to the debate that the FBU will be fully consulted by the Home Office when drafting the appropriate regulations?
My noble friend Lady McDonagh raised important questions about the scope, impact assessments, training and who will do the important work of these inspections, and, like other noble Lords, she raised the speed of the reforms which are needed. I also concur very much with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, in that regard.
I have a few other issues to raise which I hope the noble Lord can respond to shortly but, if not, I hope he will be able to respond to the points in a letter to me and copy it to other Members of the House.
In the weeks after the Grenfell Tower fire, the Government conducted industry fire safety tests known as BS 8414 tests on external wall systems using ACM cladding of different levels of combustibility, in conjunction with different types of insulation. The tests were also conducted on glass-reinforced plastic composite fire doors following the discovery that those used in Grenfell Tower were not fit for purpose. While some of the test information has been made public, the Government have not published the full test reports. If testing programmes are to continue, they need to be published so that everyone can see the full reports. In that way, the building owners will be able to see and quickly identify defective doors and take remedial action much more quickly and cost effectively. Can the noble Lord agree to look at that issue and come back to me?
In 2013, Wales was the first country in the world to require sprinklers in all new-build homes from October 2013, and in January 2016 it further upgraded that to include all new care homes, sheltered housing and other rooms for residential purposes. My noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport set out how urgent action was taken in the aftermath of the Grenfell tower fire in Newport, whose council she led. The work done there was to the credit of the council, Newport City Homes, the Welsh Government and Senedd Cymru. The Government are making moves in the right direction in respect of sprinklers, which is to be very much welcomed, but they should seek to do what has been done in Wales and introduce sprinklers in all new buildings that are built in England.
It is a fact that very few people have ever died in a fully sprinklered building. When looking at fires, Home Office data confirm that almost half of the accidental fires in England are due to electrical accidents and incidents, and that those who lose their lives are disproportionally the elderly and the vulnerable. In Committee we should therefore spend some time looking at what can be done to improve the regulations in this respect, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, said in his contribution.
As the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, said, Sir David Amess, the Member for Southend West, raised this issue and proposed amendments in the other place. We should examine these issues in detail and see whether we can make sensible, proportionate improvements that improve the safety for residents in high-rise blocks. It would be very welcome, and I associate myself very much with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in that regard.
We should also consider whether it is appropriate to have gas into high-rise residential buildings. I remember that, when my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley was a local councillor in Lewisham, there was a serious gas leak under a tower block in Brockley, which she represented. Thankfully, it was dealt with by the London Fire Brigade and British Gas, but the whole block had to be evacuated and urgent work done to remove the build-up of gas under the building. An explosion would have been devastating.
In conclusion, this has been a good debate, with lots of agreement and a genuine desire on the part of all noble Lords who spoke to improve safety, protect people and property and to get this right. I suspect that we will have a few differences of opinion, but I really want to improve the Bill, as do all other noble Lords in the House. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone across the Chamber for contributing so constructively to this Second Reading debate. There have been a number of powerful contributions, but it is clear that all noble Lords who have spoken today have rightly focused on the safety of residents. Ultimately, what matters is saving lives from the terrible impact of fire. I will address many of the points raised, although time will likely preclude me from providing a substantive response to all of the questions raised by noble Lords. Prior to that I will make a few comments.
As Members know, I have only relatively recently started in this post, but it underlines the importance that the Government place on building and fire safety that we now have a Minister working across two departments with the aim of driving forward these important reforms. I commit today that the package of reforms that has been mentioned will be driven at the fastest possible pace.
There have been a number of criticisms today about the lack of action from the Government since the Grenfell fire. I have outlined in the all-Peers letter and in my opening speech the measures the Government have undertaken, which have been supported by an unprecedented level of funding that has been made available, not just to support remediation of cladding but to improve the fire safety capability of fire and rescue services.
We are driving forward a once-in-a-generation change. The Bill is the first legislative step in this process and, as noble Lords can already see, we are committed to delivering the Grenfell recommendations through regulations following on from the fire safety consultation. As I have said before, the building safety Bill, which is currently subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, will deliver extensive and much-needed building safety reforms.
I extend my personal and sincerest welcome to my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs and offer my congratulations on his fine maiden speech. He brings formidable intellect and a first-class record of delivery as a Minister. I look forward to his contributions and to working with him in future. He was very eloquent about the social injustice involved in the Grenfell fire tragedy.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhope asked how individuals or businesses can determine whether they are a responsible person under the fire safety order. The order clearly sets out who is a responsible person, and their duties. To make it easier for individuals to confirm whether they are a responsible person, we are looking at ensuring that easy-to-understand guidance is available to aid self-identification.
I thank my noble friend Lady Sanderson for highlighting the importance of implementing the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 recommendations in full. We have made that commitment, as I said in the all-Peers letter. We have a statutory duty to consult on the proposals to deliver these recommendations, and the responses to this will help us get the legislation right. I reassure all noble Lords that this Government are and have always been committed to implementing, where appropriate, legislation for the inquiry’s recommendations, as was set out in our manifesto.
The noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, asked whether HMOs are in scope. They are clearly in scope, except for the domestic premises within that. The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Whitty, also raised the issue of scope. This is for all multi-occupied residential buildings, not just buildings over 18 metres, which is a difference from the building safety Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, also asked about impact assessments. An impact assessment has been carried out for both this Bill and the fire safety order consultation. I can direct her to that if necessary.
My noble friend Lord Bourne wanted some statistics, and I am happy to give him some. So far, 50% of the 458 buildings have completed remediation or removed the unsafe ACM cladding.
My noble friends Lady Sanderson and Lord Bourne, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, all raised the need to get the package of reforms right. I will provide information on the implementation of the fire safety consultation and the building safety Bill as far as I can, because that package of measures—together with the creation of a new regulator, which already exists in shadow form in the Health and Safety Executive—is how we will coherently reform the system needed to ensure we never see this tragedy happen again.
I reassure my noble friend Lady Sanderson that we are committed to delivering the reform and bringing the legislation forward to underpin this. The fire safety consultation, as she mentioned, will close on 12 October. Following on from this, we aim to publish a response in early 2021. Where these proposals require legislative changes, the intention is to deliver those through regulations in spring 2021 where appropriate, and, where amendment to the fire safety order is required, through primary legislation in the draft building safety Bill. That Bill is currently subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which should conclude by the end of the year. We will look to finalise it for introduction to Parliament as soon as practical.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the subject of access to information for residents. This is covered in our proposals in the fire safety order consultation: responsible persons have to provide comprehensive information to residents, including sharing fire risk assessments with new responsible persons. There is always a golden thread of continuity in providing that information.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, wanted information on the timing for the commencement of the Fire Safety Bill. Recognising the operational implications that the Bill could have, we have established a task and finish group made up of operational experts in fire safety. Its role is to advise the Government on the most optimal way of commencing the Bill. The Home Office received the group’s advice earlier this week. Its broad recommendation is to implement the Bill’s provision all at once and to take a risk-based approach to do that. We are considering a number of more detailed policy and operational issues; I intend to set this out in more detail in Committee.
The noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Shipley, my noble friend Lady Eaton and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, all mentioned the burden that could fall on leaseholders in many cases. We recognise this issue and are working on measures to address these concerns as part of the process of finalising the building safety Bill as it passes through the other place and this House.
The noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, asked what funding had been provided to support the fire and building safety reforms. I mentioned in my opening speech that £30 million of additional funding will be provided to fire and rescue services and the National Fire Chiefs Council this year in response to the Grenfell Tower fire, and I have gone through the elements of that funding package.
The noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Monks and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, all mentioned the concerns raised by the Fire Brigades Union on this Bill, particularly on capacity issues and funding. Fire and rescue services have the resources they need to do their important work. It is the responsibility of each fire and rescue authority to assess the risks in its area and determine how best to allocate its resources effectively across all its prevention, protection and response functions to mitigate the risks facing its community. This includes deciding the number of fire safety officers needed to deliver its fire safety enforcement duties under the fire safety order. As I have stated, the Government are investing £30 million of additional funding to help with this approach.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady McDonagh, and the noble Lords, Lord Stunell, Lord Whitty and Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, mentioned issues around shortfalls of fire engineers and fire risk assessors. We are working with the sector to develop a plan and a clear approach. We are also funding the British Standards Institution to develop guidance and work with professional bodies on training.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on the speed of carrying out these fire risk assessments, I say that we will take a risk-based approach. That is the advice we have received. I also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, that there is no intention to have anything other than properly qualified fire safety officers carrying out the fire risk assessments. Indeed, we are also looking at plans to build the capacity to carry out the assessments needed for high-risk buildings, as we recognise that there is a shortage of fire engineers. There are plans afoot to work with professional bodies to do this.
My noble friends Lord Bourne and Lord Randall, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, raised electrical safety and the importance of thinking about the causes of these fires and how we respond to them once they have occurred. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked what the Government were doing with regard to electrical equipment and appliances. The Office for Product Safety and Standards was created in 2018 to lead and co-ordinate the product safety system, including responding to incidents and recalls. The Government have also provided £12 million a year of additional funding for product safety regulations since 2018.
The new Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 are now in force and will apply to new tenancies from 1 April 2021. These regulations require that electrical installations be inspected and tested by a qualified person at least every five years. Social landlords are expected to comply with the decent home standard by the Regulator of Social Housing. This includes homes being free of hazards, including electrical hazards, as set out under the housing health and safety rating system. In the social housing Green Paper, we asked whether new safety measures in the private rented sector should be extended to the social sector. We are considering responses to the consultation and will bring forward a social housing White Paper soon.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope: let us work together and see whether there are specific gaps that we can address through appropriate legislation. The building safety Bill may be a vehicle in which to address some of the gaps that we may be able to plug. I look forward to working with him constructively on these matters. We are happy to meet Electrical Safety First at officer level and discuss further our approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned flat entrance doors. Regarding entrance doors to communal areas, under the fire safety order, the occupier of any private domestic premises should co-operate with responsible persons to enable them to carry out their duties, which include assessing the full fire safety risks for flat entrance doors. Our fire safety consultation seeks views on whether the provision under the fire safety order ensures the effective co-operation between the occupier of any domestic premises and the responsible person. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, also raised difficulty of access. Most of the powers in that area come under the Housing Act 2004.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, gave a characteristically positive overview of what is happening in Wales. I make a commitment that we will work with all the devolved Administrations in ensuring that our approach takes in all the best practice that we can learn. I noted her point that a White Paper will be published. However, the context in Wales is different from that in England. There are only 147 high-rise residential buildings in Wales and well over 11,000 in England. The sheer scale and magnitude of the issue is much greater here. However, I make a genuine commitment to her and my noble friend Lord Bourne that we will learn lessons from the Welsh Assembly.
My noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the progress of the path to justice and asked about the number of people interviewed under caution in relation to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I shall have to write to noble Lords on that matter. We all want to see justice done for the 72 people who lost their lives.
I have not been able to respond to all the substantive points raised by noble Lords. Where that is the case, I will make sure that I respond in writing. Noble Lords should feel free to contact me. Although I appreciate that some would wish us to go much further, I welcome the cross-party support for the provisions in the Bill. Where noble Lords wish to go further, in most instances it is not the case that we disagree but that we see it as something we are seeking to address either through the fire safety consultation or the draft building safety Bill, already published.
This Government are steadfast in their determination to see this Bill enacted and implemented as quickly as practicable. I commend it to the House and beg to move.
Bill read a second time.
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill
Thursday 1st October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2020 View all Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 1 October 2020 (PDF) - (1 Oct 2020)