Grand Committee
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2023.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, this fees order sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged, and the maximum amount that can be charged in relation to each of those functions. In the order we are debating, we are proposing a number of changes that will facilitate major government policy, play an important role in the simplification of the Home Office’s fee structure, and allow vital decisions to be made to ensure that the migration and borders system is properly funded.
Before I set out in detail the changes proposed in the order, I reiterate that the Government’s aim is to reduce the burden of operating the migration and borders system on the UK taxpayer. The fees set within the parameters of this order are a vital part of the Home Office’s funding settlement. Without the flexibility afforded by the order to adjust fees for all immigration and nationality routes through separate legislation, it is not possible for the Home Office to take a balanced approach to setting fees.
It is therefore vital that the maximum amounts set out in the order allow appropriate choices to be made on individual routes to support a balanced overall approach, avoiding the potential for increases to fall disproportionately on routes where there is flexibility to adjust fee levels. Noble Lords will be aware of proposals to increase fees across a number of immigration and nationality routes. Those fees can be set only through separate legislation, which will be laid later this year, and not the instrument we are debating today. That separate legislation will be accompanied by the production of a full economic impact assessment.
Turning to the changes we are proposing to the fee maximas, the majority of these have not changed since the previous order was laid in 2016. The changes we propose, which are accompanied by an economic impact assessment, will provide the necessary flexibility to make changes to fee levels where they are required to ensure that the sustainability of the migration and borders system is maintained and that we are able to set fees at a level that recovers the cost of processing an application.
As the Committee will know, the United Kingdom is launching an electronic travel authorisation scheme that will strengthen the security of our border and support our wider ambition for digitising the UK border. This is a familiar concept to the majority of international travellers, with many of our international partners having had similar schemes in place for a number of years. My Written Ministerial Statement on 6 June this year outlined the intention to set a fee of £10 for each application on the initial rollout of the scheme. The order before us provides a power to charge a fee for the scheme and sets the maximum fee that can be set by the Home Office for each application. Although we have announced our intended fee level of £10, that fee cannot be set through this order. We will set the fee formally through the immigration and nationality fees regulations, which, as I said, will be subject to approval by Parliament later this year.
We are continuing to simplify our fee structure by removing fees that have become increasingly redundant as part of the wider transition to digital evidence of immigration status or that are no longer required to support wider policy objectives. We will remove the chargeable function for biometric enrolment for all remaining instances of the £19.20 fee in the regulations, reducing the number of fees that customers are required to pay in relation to an application in respect of biometric enrolment. We are removing the £161 fee charged in country for a transfer of conditions for those with limited leave to remain because this fee is now largely obsolete, with all new customers applying in country now issued with a biometric residence permit or digital status.
We are also removing the fee to amend details on physical documents—such as name, sex marker, nationality and photograph—for those with limited leave to remain. This will bring these customers in line with those issued digital status and those with indefinite leave to remain, who are not charged a fee to make this sort of amendment. Finally, the order provides that we will no longer charge a fee for a like-for-like replacement of a biometric residence permit where that document has expired. This will primarily benefit those with indefinite leave to remain, whose cards have a maximum 10-year validity, with most due to expire in 2024.
The final changes that we are proposing in the order will ensure that it and subsequent fees regulations are aligned with the wider policy changes being made in the migration and borders landscape. Under new arrangements being rolled out as part of broader reforms to the innovator route, contact point meetings—a term defined in the order—will be required between an endorsing body and the individual applicant to assess progress against their business plan. The fee maximum for these meetings is set at £500. The fee for each assessment will be £500 and will be set in the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations in the next year, ahead of these meetings being chargeable in April 2024.
The current sponsorship system is being reformed, with the existing system of certificates of sponsorship being phased out and replaced with the “sponsor a worker” service. This will happen in stages with a limited beta test in 2024, during which both the certificates of sponsorship and the “sponsor a worker” scheme will operate side by side. The amendment that we are making in this order will facilitate this charge, providing a fee maximum to be set at the same level as the certificate of sponsorship, which is £300.
In closing, the changes that we are proposing through this order are vital to providing enough flexibility to amend fee levels, with the approval of Parliament, to ensure that the system is sustainable. I beg to move.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
May I ask my noble friend the Minister about something to do with the policy background? In discussing the changes for which the order provides, both in function and fee levels under the regulations, my noble friend referred to one of the policy objectives: the overall security of our borders. In discussing security here and elsewhere, the Government have referred to pre-entry checks that will facilitate entry at our borders. My related question is: is there any proposal or plan to have ongoing checks, including checks when a successful applicant leaves the country, given that the proposed electronic travel authorisations will last for up to two years for short visits? If so, what does the Home Office intend to do to operate these?
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I want to raise two main issues with the Minister. He will undoubtedly not be surprised to hear that the first is a process issue; the second will deal with the operation and impact of this SI.
As the Minister knows, he is the Minister responsible for all SIs in the Home Office. I am sure that he will have seen and noted the criticisms and comments expressed in the 44th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of this House, which draws this SI to the special attention of this House, and its findings on the Home Office’s approach to SIs more generally.
I also note the Minister’s remarks to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in giving evidence on 11 May. There is much information in that evidence, so I will restrict myself to looking at Explanatory Memorandums and the Minister’s role in all Home Office SIs. The committee’s report states:
“The Home Office’s Explanatory Memorandum (EM) omitted key information about the wider context of the policy changes, something that has been a theme of our comments on recent EMs from the department”.
As this is where the examination of these matters is concerned, would the Minister like to respond to this point?
Secondly on the Minister’s role, I note the judicial analogy he gave in evidence to the committee. The question was being asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who is of course a former Supreme Court judge. He asked the Minister,
“do you look at the Explanatory Memorandum before it is sent out, or are you a bit like some Silks who never read the skeleton argument that they will subsequently have to defend?”
The Minister replied:
“I cannot confess that I read every SI that the Home Office lays before Parliament and every Explanatory Memorandum. If there was a really controversial or difficult SI, the expectation is that it would be raised with me as the SI Minister and I would review it”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, then went on to ask:
“Do you then, in that process, go through it, read it and say, ‘Look, this hasn’t got the right disclosure. You ought to be making this point and that point’, a bit like you would as a Silk dealing with your junior?”
To this the Minister replied—and I am sure he remembers this:
“I shall certainly take that away and adopt that as best practice”.
Could the Minister tell us how that best practice is going, having adopted it? There are clearly criticisms in this report and the Committee would like to hear how the Home Office Minister is responding on behalf of the whole Home Office.
I turn to the content of the SI, on which I have three issues to raise. The first is the impact on tourism from the ETA, the second is the impact on universities—I shall cite Cranfield University in particular—and the third is the operations of the common travel area. This SI touches on all three and there are certainly matters that could do with further explanation.
First, on tourism, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report, in paragraphs 7 to 10, outlines the range of potential negative economic impacts. Given that the figure the Minister referred to is based on the cost of ETAs and processing them, rather than the impact on the tourism industry, and given the flexing from the difficulty in understanding how many people this will deter from entering the United Kingdom, why has visitor expenditure not been quantified in the documentation that accompanies this SI? I am sure that there are data that outline visitor spend per head in country. Any tourist who comes into this country will be spending money here on hotels, food, visitor attractions and so on. Does the Minister agree that it is possible to quantify the level of expenditure per head? If the reduction is 1% or whatever figure is inherent in the documentation, you could quantify that as a loss to the tourism industry.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I have a point of clarification. What I do not understand, behind the noble Lord’s probing, is that if it is a requirement under law to have an ETA for all visitors coming, for instance, from the Republic of Ireland, if they travel on a ferry, as the noble Lord suggests, over to somewhere else, or indeed if they come to this country—it will not be required for the Republic but it will for Northern Ireland—is it not the law that they must have it? For instance, it is very important for insurance purposes if they are taking a car on the ferry. They must be covered under law and they must have an authorised travel document, as I understand it. So why would this be an issue, given the way that our law works? If you are obliged to do something, it is expected that you will do it.
Lord German (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness; she has asked the question to which I particularly wanted to know the answer: how do you enforce it? There is no way of knowing whether anyone has any documentation at all. Whether people avoid it deliberately or because they do not know and they are just moving around, at some stage we have to know—and we do not know. It is easy if you are coming in from Europe, because if you are doing so in any other capacity there is definitely a documentation check, but there is no documentation check coming into the United Kingdom and Great Britain. That is the bit I am trying to find out and that is why I have asked the question. I know this is very tricky and that discussion is going on about it, but I just do not understand how enforcement of any sort will—or could—take place.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, following the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and related changes to the Immigration Rules in March this year, this order is the next stage of a lengthy process to implement the Government’s planned ETA system. Ministers have set themselves a target to begin issuing ETAs to people from Qatar and other Gulf states this autumn and for the scheme to be fully operational by the end of next year.
With respect to the new ETA system, the scope of the order is limited to fees to be charged and requirements for applicants to submit biometric information. A number of the most important issues, about how the scheme will work and what impact it will have, are left for another day. The new ETA system is a major undertaking, and its effects will be wide-ranging.
Significant numbers of UK-bound travellers who do not need a visa will be required to obtain formal clearance to enter the UK for the first time. Whether or not the system will function as it should will depend to a substantial degree on the effectiveness of new technologies that are still in development. In this case, the ETA system will require applications to be made and, eventually, biometric information to be submitted, online or via a new app which is yet to see the light of day. The Government say that even the decision-making process may be automated. That will take highly sophisticated technologies, and robust testing will be essential before the new system comes online. Will the Minister therefore provide an update on what progress has been made in the development of those technologies to date, and tell us whether he believes that the Home Office is currently on track to meet the deadlines it has set for the rollout of those changes?
There is a series of questions about the potential impacts of the order, especially on the tourism sector and the wider economy, including how travel across the border with Ireland might be affected. I have yet to be convinced that Ministers are taking adequate steps to address the concerns raised by stakeholders and to mitigate the unintended consequences. With regard to tourism, the impact assessment published alongside the order recognised that it is reasonable to expect a fall in tourist numbers once the ETA has been implemented, and that revenues can be expected to decrease as a result.
Concerns about the implications for cross-border travel between Northern Ireland and the Republic are especially acute in this sector. However, the impact assessment fails to capture the different effects that the ETA may have across the UK’s different nations and regions. That is a significant oversight. Members of the Northern Ireland tourist board have expressed extreme concern about this issue. They feel that their marketing strategy is very much based on an all-Ireland approach and that the ETA might risk this. Will the Minister therefore set out what steps the Home Office plans to take to mitigate any adverse effects on the tourist trade that these changes may have across the UK, including but not limited to the effects on Northern Ireland?
Given that we are dealing with an order that addresses fees, can the Minister tell us what consideration the Government have given to the potential merits of ring-fencing some of the income generated from applicants’ fees as a means of providing financial support to any business that may find itself struggling with the transition?
Alongside the measures pertaining to ETAs, this order makes changes to the maximum fee level applicable to a range of UK visa routes. For the most part, the proposed increases are relatively modest. The notable exception is for student visas. At present, applicants cannot be charged more than £490, but the order would increase the maximum fee to £600, which equates to a more than 20% increase on the current level, with significant potential implications for international student numbers. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has noted, the scale of the increase is particularly striking when measured against the actual cost to the Home Office of processing those visas, which is less than half of what applicants have to pay. The Government’s impact assessment for the student visa fee increase acknowledges that this potential change is likely to have significant knock-on effects on the number of visas granted to international students and, as a result, on revenue from tuition fees, on which so many of our leading universities remain reliant.
Can the Government go some way to quantifying this? The noble Lord, Lord German, talked about quantifying these impacts and was disappointed by this lack of quantification, but, of course, this funding can be monitored as the system continues to roll out as there will be a number of stages in future. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the impact of the system as it is rolled out will be monitored in a quantitative way as far as possible.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for this constructive short debate. Turning to the various points that have been raised, first, I confirm to my noble friend Lady Lawlor that the Home Office will continually monitor the suitability of a person to hold an ETA and will cancel an ETA once granted if that becomes appropriate. An ETA can be cancelled on a range of grounds, including criminality, exclusion or deportation and on non-conducive grounds. Clearly the whole point of having an ETA of limited duration—two years—is that when a further application is made, further checks are run on the applicant. The electronic travel authorisation scheme is designed in such a way that the security of our borders is paramount.
On the process point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, as the SI Minister for the Home Office, I am very familiar with the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the content of its report. I reassure him that, as I said in my Written Ministerial Statement on 6 June, our intention is to charge a fee of £10, and this order allows for £15 as a potential maximum. As this order establishes only the chargeable function and the maximum chargeable fee, not the actual intended fee, the Explanatory Memorandum for this SI focused on the chargeable function and maximum rather than the intended fee, which will, as I said in my earlier remarks, be set out later this year in the immigration and nationality fees regulations.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns with the Home Office that the Explanatory Memorandum did not, as the noble Lord said, provide enough information about the bigger picture of the ETA policy and should have included the intended level of fees and the rationale for them. I have explained the logic behind the way we have set out the Explanatory Memorandum for this instrument, but of course I will bear in mind what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said when I prepare and review the Explanatory Memorandum for the fees regulations that will be introduced later this year, and of course I will reflect more generally on the point in relation to fees legislation in future. I thank the noble Lord for raising the point.
Lord German (LD)
Perhaps I could probe a little deeper there, because we get most of our tourists, in bulk numbers, from within the European Union. That is the number we are looking at, and where people can choose which other country they want to go to. They have a choice of 25 countries, including the Republic of Ireland. The difficulty here is that it is suggested that there will be a 1% drop in the number of tourists to this country, and it is that bit I am trying to find out. If they are predominantly from the European Union, then it is not the cost issue there, because for people who are in the European Union, there is no cost to moving from one country to another. So I would just like to probe a little bit more on that.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I say, it is the Home Office’s view that the cost will have a negligible impact on the choice of destination. Interestingly, just picking up on a point that the noble Lord raised, the Republic of Ireland is not proposed to be part of the ETIAS, and has chosen to opt out, as it is not in the Schengen area. So the Republic of Ireland is something of an outlier now in this field, which of course ties back to the point that I will come to in relation to the noble Lord’s third point on the common travel area.
I turn to the noble Lord’s second point: the impact on universities. Fees for immigration and nationality applications are kept under review, as the noble Lord knows. Increases to student visas were announced as part of a wider announcement on fees on 13 July by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Those changes will be made in the same regulations that I have already discussed that will come later this year. Those fees will be within the maximum that we are setting in today’s order. While the student fee maximum was increased by a small amount in 2022, the Home Office has determined that further flexibility is necessary to ensure that we are able to take a balanced consideration of fee levels across all routes. The amendment we are proposing to this order will allow this to happen over the longer term.
The Government are of the view that it is right that those who benefit most from the immigration system should contribute towards the cost of operating it. We also note that there is limited evidence that past fee increases have affected demand on study routes.
I turn to the noble Lord’s final point, in respect of the common travel area. As now, there will be no routine immigration controls on journeys within the common travel area and no immigration controls whatever on the Ireland/Northern Ireland land border, as the noble Lord would expect. However, as is currently the case, individuals arriving in the United Kingdom, including those crossing the land border, will need to continue to enter in line with our immigration framework, which obviously will include the requirement to obtain an ETA when they are introduced. I should add that an ETA will not be necessary for an Irish national, of course, because they have special status.
The general principle that one enters the common travel area while adhering to the immigration framework is a long-standing and well-established one. Those crossing from Northern Ireland into Ireland have long been expected to comply with immigration requirements. Once granted, an ETA will be valid for multiple journeys over an extended period, as I discussed in relation to the point made by my noble friend Lady Lawlor. Third-country nationals who are already legally resident in Ireland will be exempt from the requirement to obtain an ETA when travelling to the UK on a journey within the common travel area. In order to benefit from this exemption, if required to do so by a UK immigration official, non-residents of Ireland will need to present physical evidence demonstrating that they are legally resident in Ireland. I hope that this answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord German. Guidance as to the forms of identification that will be required has been provided as of Thursday last week; I can provide a copy to the noble Lord after this debate.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in relation to the process; in particular, how we have tested the tech for electronic travel authorisations. I assure him that I have personally tried the tech. It is very impressive and is swift and easy to use. It simply uses a mobile phone handset, the chip in the applicant’s passport and their credit card details, while their biometric details are taken by the camera on the phone. I assure the noble Lord that this technology has been subjected to robust testing and the Home Office remains on track to launch the scheme in Qatar in October this year.
We have made a deliberate decision to have a phased rollout, starting with Qatar, before rolling it out worldwide in 2024, to ensure that our systems and processes can accommodate the expected number of applications; we expect the figure to be in the region of 30 million a year. We have invested in brand new technology to ensure that customers receive the best user experience when applying for an ETA. As I say, the Home Office has done extensive testing on the mobile application. We are using the same technology that we used for the highly successful EU settlement scheme, so we are confident that the tech should be fully successful when the scheme is launched; as I say, we remain on track to launch in October 2023.
I have already partly responded to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord German, about Northern Ireland tourism. I can assure him the Home Office has been working closely with tourist bodies across Ireland to ensure that the ETA requirement has as little impact as possible on Irish tourism, both from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland and the other way around. We are committed to working with stakeholders to ensure that the requirement is effectively targeted through a variety of channels and to mitigate any risk of it being seen as a barrier to pan-Ireland tourism, if I can call it that.
Finally, on the noble Lord’s point about the general increases proposed, these increases clearly reflect that the majority of fees have not been subject to a significant increase since 2018, despite a context of high inflation and record high migration into the UK. As I have already said, it is the Government’s policy that those who use and benefit most from the immigration system should contribute towards the cost of operating the system, reducing the burden on the UK taxpayer. The increases announced by the Government will mean that a greater share of that cost will be met by those users of the system. This in turn will allow more funding to be prioritised elsewhere in the Home Office, including to pay for vital services and support public sector pay rises. These increases, which are within the existing fee maxima, will, as I have said, be made through separate legislation after the Summer Recess.
I reassure noble Lords that the immigration fees will be kept under review over the lifespan of this order and will be updated within the parameters that we are setting today. In the event that fee levels are changed, they will need to be approved by this House and accompanied by a full economic impact assessment. I commend this order to the Committee.
Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matter) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matter) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, this order amends the Police Act 1997 to require all unspent convictions and cautions to be disclosed on standard or enhanced criminal record certificates issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service—DBS.
The DBS issues three types of criminal record certificate: a basic certificate, which is available for any role; and two higher levels—standard and enhanced—which are available for roles that require a high level of public trust and/or working closely with children or vulnerable adults. More criminal history information is disclosed on the standard and enhanced checks than on the basic, in proportion to the sensitivity of the roles to which they relate.
The legislation which governs disclosure on basic certificates is different from that which determines what is disclosed on standard and enhanced. Disclosure on a basic certificate is governed by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This sets out the periods of time after which convictions and cautions become spent. Once spent, they are not disclosed on a basic DBS certificate. Disclosure on a standard or enhanced certificate is governed by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 and Section 113A of the Police Act 1997. Together, these allow an employer recruiting for more sensitive roles to see a person’s fuller criminal history.
The filtering rules that govern this disclosure on standard and enhanced certificates define particular criminal records as a relevant matter which must be disclosed. The definition of “relevant matter” includes the seriousness of the offence, whether there was a custodial sentence and the length of time since the date of conviction or caution. The intention is that the convictions covered by the definition of “relevant matter” should include the unspent convictions disclosed on a basic check, in addition to more serious spent convictions, which are relevant to more sensitive roles.
However, the filtering rules do not currently include explicit reference to whether a conviction or caution is spent. This has created an anomaly where, in certain limited circumstances, an unspent conviction that would be disclosed on a basic certificate would not be disclosed on a standard or enhanced certificate.
An example may assist, the most straightforward of which involves youth conditional cautions which remain unspent for three months or until the condition is met if earlier. So if somebody applies for a basic DBS check during that three-month window, the youth conditional caution will be disclosed. However, there is no provision for youth conditional cautions to be disclosed automatically on a standard or enhanced check, even during the three-month window in which they remain unspent.
This might play out as follows. Let us say that a 17 year-old receives a youth conditional caution for common assault. Two months later, they apply to volunteer in a nursery and are required to undertake an enhanced DBS check. There is no provision for their youth conditional caution to be automatically disclosed on the enhanced check so it comes back clean. However, to earn some money alongside their volunteering, the 17 year-old also applies for a job in a supermarket, for which they are asked for a basic DBS check. The basic check discloses the youth conditional caution because it is not yet spent. The supermarket therefore ends up with access to more information than the nursery.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I start by saying that the rationale for this SI seems sensible. Standard and enhanced DBS certificates should never have a lesser capture of information than that provided by basic checks. However, as is always the case with complex organisational things of this nature, the devil lies in the detail; in other words, does all this match up together appropriately? I want to ask a few questions about the connection between the new disclosure provision for standard and enhanced DBS certificates and the provision for filtering—that is, where things are filtered or not filtered accordingly.
As I understand it, police national computer records relating to protected cautions and convictions will not automatically appear on a certificate. If that is the case, is it the case across all three if they are protected? Are there any unspent offences or cautions that will now become declarable and where filtration will or will not apply, as it could be one way or the other? Will the unspent caution change apply equally to both simple and conditional cautions, which are two different styles of caution?
I want to ask the Minister a question about the two-tier caution system, which is obliquely associated with this SI. This regime was investigated in a pilot, which resulted in 2018 with three police forces undertaking the activity. I wonder whether, now that they have got to the end of that and we have passed through Covid, any further consideration has been given to a different regime here, such as the one described in the 2018 report.
Finally, on the consultation on this SI, there are bodies and agencies such as Unlock, which supports prospective employees who have convictions. Can the Minister say that their awareness of what is happening and why has met with their consent or approval? Has it been met with any concerns from bodies such as them about the way in which this order is before us today? I have only those questions.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this appears to be a sensible SI. No concerns were raised by the SLSC, nor was the instrument reported by the JCSI. It will align the separate rules which determine what criminal record information is automatically disclosed on a basic DBS check, on the one hand, and what is disclosed on the higher-level standard and enhanced DBS checks, on the other, so that higher-level checks will never disclose less criminal information than is disclosed on a basic DBS check. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The Home Office is working with DBS to ensure that this change and the timing for this to come into effect, is widely understood by those it may affect”.
The example that the Minister gave of the 17 year-old working in a supermarket and then also applying to work with children was a very good one, and one which I have actually seen myself in youth courts. I had not realised that there was this anomaly, and I am glad that this SI is rectifying it.
This morning, I sent the Minister a particular conundrum I had, which is actually outside the strict remit of this statutory instrument. I will just run through that scenario, and I hope the Minister will be able to answer the question it raised with me. I was recently sitting as a magistrate to hear domestic violence protection order applications. Of course, these are civil orders. The applicant was a young mother, who was represented by a lawyer who happened also to be a part-time judge. The respondent, the former boyfriend, was unrepresented. The applicant’s lawyer suggested that the best way to deal with this matter was to not find any facts and just put an order in place for a relatively short time, and everyone could continue living their lives separately and the matter could be disposed of in that way quite quickly. I explained to the respondent that, if he were to breach that order, it would be a criminal offence and he needed to be aware of that. The respondent said to me that he was employed as a primary school teacher, and he was in a much more serious situation than seemed to be realised by the court. He would have to tell his headteacher if the DVPO had been put in place. So I put it off for a contested hearing and advised the young man to get a lawyer.
Subsequently, I talked about this case with a legal adviser, and she said that, as a solicitor, she would not have to disclose whether she had any equivalent civil order put in place. She would not have to tell the Solicitors Regulation Authority, so she doubted whether this primary school teacher would have to do so in his case. I did not know the answer to that question. I suspect there may well be more stringent regulations for teachers, particularly primary school teachers, and there is of course the wider question of all these—really quite a lot of—civil orders which magistrates now put in place, for the reasons we have often debated, and whether there are any guidelines for the various professional organisations about what the requirements for disclosure are and whether that is a ramification which may be taken into account within the whole DBS system.
Also this morning, I went on to the website of the charity Unlock, which deals with people who have left prison and who have had community sentences and that sort of thing. It has a number of worked examples about when things are declarable and when they are not, and at what stage of the job application process matters are declarable. It is an extremely complex picture. It is something which people often fall foul of, and the rules are not clear at all. Can the Minister say anything in a wider sense about how these checking procedures are being reviewed and simplified, from the point of view both of employers and of those people who do have criminal records, so that a system which is better understood can be operational, which would be to the benefit of both sides?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I am glad that they both agree that this instrument is necessary to align the two sets of rules that determine disclosure of criminal records on basic certificates, on the one hand, and the standard and enhanced certificates on the other. This will ensure that on all occasions the levels of disclosure on criminal record certificates align with the levels of risk and vulnerability inherent in particular roles.
Perhaps if I go into a bit more detail, it will answer all or most of the noble Lord’s questions. I shall come back to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on his specific example towards the end. It is worth pointing out that the circumstances in which this might occur are very limited, which suggests that the practical impact is likely to be fairly low. The nature of the offences involved also reduces the impact of this anomaly. The DBS has had regular contact with employers regarding criminal record checks across a range of sectors, and we are not aware of any evidence that this lack of alignment between the two sets of rules has had any significant real-world impact. It is worth stating that. Although we believe this impact to be low in practice, it makes sense to rectify the situation.
To go into more of the sort of detail that the noble Lord, Lord German, asked for about the types of convictions or cautions that are currently not disclosed on standard and enhanced certificates, we believe that the practical impact of this lack of alignment is low. However, as mentioned earlier, with youth conditional cautions, which are only unspent and disclosed on a basic DBS check from three months of issue, it will apply only to those youth conditional cautions because they are immediately spent—so youth cautions will not be automatically disclosed. I hope that that answers that point.
Some of the other things that would be disclosed include earlier convictions in a string of repeat convictions. In that circumstance, there is likely to be a clear standard or enhanced DBS certificate. Then there are relevant orders, which include restraining orders and care orders—that sort of thing—if they relate to convictions that are old or less serious and if they have unlimited, indefinite or “until further order” end dates. As I said, we believe that the impact of this will be relatively low, but I hope that that gives an example of the sort of thing that we are dealing with here.
The noble Lord, Lord German, asked what cautions are not disclosed on standard and enhanced certificates for the relevant matter, and asked whether this was not a safeguarding risk. We believe, as I have said a number of times, that the impact is likely to be low, given the limited circumstances in which it can occur, and the nature of the offences involved. I have gone through them to some extent: I have talked about the youth conditional cautions, the early convictions and relative orders, so I think that that generally answers the relevant question that the noble Lord asked me.
To go back to the specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on the case that came before him as a magistrate, this is not a complete answer—we will have to do some consultations with the Department for Education as well—so I hope that he will be content to leave that with me, and I shall return when I have concluded those discussions. From the perspective of the disclosure and barring regime, the domestic violence prevention order, if not handed down as part of a conviction, does not need to be disclosed by an individual to an employer, nor will it be automatically disclosed on any kind of DBS check. It is possible that a civil order such as this might be included as additional information on an enhanced check, but only if the police consider it to be relevant and proportionate to disclose. Teachers are subject to regular DBS enhanced checks, with children’s barred list checks. If there is a conviction, either due to a breach of the order or its attachment to a conviction, it would be disclosed on an enhanced DBS check. If asked by his employer, the teacher would be obliged to tell them of the conviction and the order.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that this is somewhat complicated—he makes a very good point about that. The Disclosure and Barring Service ensures that applicants and employers have guidance to explain the changes and the impact that they may have in any particular circumstances. It goes to both noble Lords’ questions as well as to the external bodies that have been consulted. We have certainly engaged with Unlock; whether it approves of this measure, I really could not say, but I would imagine so because it brings clarity to this situation. But we have certainly engaged with it and other interested stakeholders on a regular basis.
I should also say that existing guidance makes it clear that, where an employer is aware of a conviction, it should not be an automatic bar to employment. We urge employers to exercise a balanced judgment and take into account factors such as the person’s age at the time of the offence, how long ago the offence took place, the nature of the offence and its relevance to the individual’s role. All of those deserve to be restated. I will take the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about simplifying the guidance, or the regime that delivers the guidance, and making it a little easier for people to understand.
With that, I think I have answered the questions. I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and once again commend this draft instrument to the Committee.
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2023
Lord Harlech
That the Grand Committee do consider the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2023.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming and land management interests, as set out in the register. This order was laid before the House on 6 June 2023. It delivers a package of financial and operational improvements to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board—AHDB.
I start by highlighting the AHDB’s important role in supporting and developing our agricultural sectors, investing around £42 million each year in a range of levy-funded services for farmers and others in the agri-food chain. These important services include: applied research and knowledge exchange, such as developing genetic improvements for livestock and tackling pests and disease in crops; market intelligence and analysis, such as providing data and information on input costs, prices, shifting consumer trends and future outlooks for supply and demand of commodities; marketing and consumer education, such as delivering the campaign, We Eat Balanced, to encourage consumers to eat British red meat and dairy as part of a balanced diet; and working with industry and government to establish new export markets.
This instrument modernises the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order so that it can continue to deliver these important services efficiently and effectively. It will also enable more agricultural sectors to access AHDB services if they wish to. Currently, the narrow scope of the order limits the AHDB to working with only the sectors that are listed. By expanding the scope of the order to include other agricultural sectors and related industries, we are providing flexibility for the AHDB to work with a range of other sectors that may wish to access the AHDB’s expertise and services. Any activities that the AHDB undertakes through this expanded scope will be funded directly by those industries and will not involve a statutory levy.
The AHDB will apply clear governance principles to its expanded scope, including that there will be no cross-subsidising of new activities with existing levy-funded services. Another key principle will be that activities in other sectors will add value to the core work the AHDB delivers for levy payers and will not detract from or undermine levy-funded services.
The instrument also delivers changes to help the AHDB reduce administration costs and operate more efficiently. It will put in place more efficient processes for ministerial approval of levy rates so that, in future, approval must be sought when changes are being proposed, instead of the bureaucratic annual approval by default. It will also enable the AHDB to deliver a temporary zero-rated levy to provide financial relief to a sector in exceptional circumstances such as a disease outbreak or market crash.
This instrument will also deliver important modernising changes to the outdated levy deduction provisions. These provisions will enable third-party levy collectors to deduct a percentage of the levy that they collect to cover any administrative costs they may incur. Modern automated financial systems have significantly reduced the administration costs of collecting the levy. Therefore, going forward, rather than having a deduction rate set in statute that cannot easily be updated, the provision will enable any deduction rate to be reviewed and agreed between third-party levy collectors and the AHDB. This will deliver better value for money to levy payers, as reviewing and amending levy deduction rates on a cost-recovery basis will reduce any unnecessary administration costs and enable more levy income to be returned to the AHDB to invest in delivering services.
A further important update we are making to the order concerns the maximum levy rate allowed for the sheep sector. The levy rate for the sheep sector has been at the maximum allowable rate for more than 10 years. We are raising the maximum rate ceiling by 25% to provide headroom for the AHDB to consult further with the industry on an appropriate rate to maintain the services that it receives in future. The new ceiling will be 75 pence per head for sheep producers and 25 pence per head for slaughterers and exporters. The government consultation on this reform shows that key industry organisations, such as the National Sheep Association and the National Farmers’ Union, are supportive of raising the sheep levy ceiling. The AHDB will undertake detailed consultation and engagement with the industry on future options for changing levy rates.
Finally, this instrument delivers some smaller changes to modernise the AHDB order so it is up to date with current practices on invoicing, reflects consolidation in the pig sector and is in line with Cabinet Office guidance on public appointments of board members.
I take this opportunity to thank the chief executive and the chair of the AHDB, Tim Rycroft and Nicholas Saphir, for their service and contribution. Together, they have delivered a significant programme of change putting levy payers at the heart of what they do and supporting our agricultural sectors to adapt and thrive in a changing world.
In conclusion, these modernising updates to the AHDB regulations will ensure that the board can continue to deliver important services to farmers efficiently and effectively. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for his thorough introduction to this statutory instrument which, although straightforward, is confusing in some elements. Throughout the Explanatory Memorandum, there are references to what is being changed and what it will do now, but they do not always appear coherent. The AHDB was set up in 2008 under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006 and provides advice to a number of industries involved in animals and horticulture. The original 2008 statutory instrument, No 576, allows the AHDB to introduce and set levies to cover the cost of its operations to all the sectors set out in paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum to this order. The original 2008 statutory instrument is quite clear in Article 11.7 that the appropriate authority for each sector is not bound by the decision of the levy set as a result of a ballot of its sector. I understand why this would be an unwelcome obstacle to overcome and that, as the Explanatory Memorandum to this order states in paragraph 7.6, the levy rates
“have already been approved by the appropriate authority is unnecessary and inefficient. It also limits the ability of the AHDB to put forward proposals for changes to levy rates”.
However, paragraph 7.7 of this Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Final decisions on approving a proposed change to the levy rate will remain with the appropriate authority”.
This gives a strong impression that the appropriate authority can refuse to approve a new levy rate. Can the Minister provide some clarification on this issue?
Paragraph 7.8 states that Article 6 of the 2008 order will allow for
“a zero rated levy to be imposed on an industry … for a temporary period”.
Can the Minister say how long “temporary” is likely to be? It is clear from paragraph 7.2 that the pig industry is included in the provisions of this instrument, but there appears to be some dispute about what constitutes a pig keeper in terms of influencing the outcome of a vote on the levy. Why do some pig producers not pay the levy? Do the producers have undue influence on the outcome of the vote on the levy? If so, has this been the case since 2008? If so, surely this should have been sorted out before now?
I turn now to the issue of the sheep levy. As is generally accepted, sheep is not the sector that produces untold wealth for their farmers. Having looked at the actual rates proposed in the schedule attached to the original SI No. 576, I found that the levies set then per beast were a total of £8.75 for cattle, £1.50 for calves, £1.625 for pigs, and a pound for sheep. It would seem that this levy has remained the same for 10 years, although I think the Minister may have given some different information, which I am pleased about. The current SI proposes that the sheep levy will rise by 25% and the industry will be consulted. This would allow the AHDB to increase, reduce or keep the levy at the same rate. Can the Minister confirm that the 25% increase will be on the figures quoted on the original SI of 2008, or whether it will be on some other figures, which I think he has said will be 75p for the buyer for sheep and, if I heard correctly, 25p for the slaughterers? Could he confirm this in relation to sheep?
There is also a question mark over when invoices will be raised by the AHDB. Payment will be due 30 days from the date of the invoice for the levy issued. I realise that it is extremely important for budgeting purposes for invoices to be issued and payment received as soon as possible. Is the Minister able to say whether all invoices will be issued at the same time, maybe at the beginning of the financial year, or whether there will be a gradual issuing of invoices throughout the year?
Lastly, I turn to the issues raised in paragraph 7.18 of this EM, which states that buyers, slaughterers and exporters have lost levy income of between £600,000 and £700,000 per year due to admin costs. Those costs are all part of running a business, and would be expected to be accounted for in business plans. The original instrument No. 576, in the paragraph on levies, in sub-paragraph 6(3)b states that the AHDB can impose a levy to meet its administrative costs, so this would appear to have already been considered. It is important that, when these changes to the levies are implemented, all concerned accurately calculate their admin expenses in relation to the current economic climate, so that levies are not increased at a later date to retrospectively put this right.
When the consultation between December 2022 and February 2023 was conducted, there was some disagreement on establishing a statutory register of levy payers. Consequently, this proposal was dropped in favour of a voluntary approach. Given the very varying nature of the areas covered by the AHDB, I can envisage that there will not be voluntary unanimity on this subject across the various sectors. It may be that there will have to be a statutory duty to keep a register to ensure parity across those differing sectors. I am nevertheless happy to support this SI and can see that it is long overdue.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to this final Defra SI before the Recess. I thank the Minister for his overview.
As we made clear in the other place, the Labour Party will support the provisions outlined in the statutory legislation. This is an important step forward for the wider agricultural and horticultural sectors. As my colleague Daniel Zeichner said in the other place:
“working across a host of agricultural sectors, the AHDB undertakes important research, development and farm-level knowledge transfer, along with working to improve supply chain transparency and stimulating demand to help develop export markets”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 18/5/23; col. 4.]
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their views and questions on this instrument. We all recognise the importance of the services that the AHDB delivers to our agricultural sectors and that this instrument will help it to continue to do that that as efficiently and effectively as possible. I will now address some of the points that have been raised in the debate, and I undertake to follow up in writing any questions that I cannot answer today. I will place copies of those letters in the Library.
It may be helpful to expand on the financial impact of the AHDB in detail and how funds are allocated. In total, the AHDB collects and invests around £42.1 million a year in statutory levies. The investment that the AHDB makes in each sector, and the gross amounts that are collected and invested annually, are broken down as follows: cereals and oilseeds, which is UK-wide, £11.2 million; dairy, which is GB-wide, circa £7.3 million; beef and lamb, which is England only, circa £14.7 million; and pork, which again is England only, circa £8.9 million.
Both noble Baronesses talked about the impact of the AHDB and what it delivers for farmers. The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, talked about scale and how smaller producers are perhaps affected. This is exactly why the board is so important: most individual farmers do not have the financial resources to invest in large research and development programmes that will help their businesses thrive in the future. By pooling resources through the statutory levy, the AHDB delivers those services for the whole sector so, even if someone is not invested—so to speak—the research and development going into the sector, the knowledge that is created from it, the expertise in new farming techniques and so on will have an overall benefit for everybody. These services include applied research and knowledge exchange, market intelligence and analysis, domestic marketing and consumer education and, crucially, export market development opening up new markets abroad.
With a view to talking about the scope of the board and how we will ensure that an expanded scope does not distract from the AHDB’s core purpose, the AHDB is clear that levy payers are at the heart of its activities. With this in mind, the AHDB intends to deliver services and activities to sectors where they will add value to its core work with levy-paying sectors. The AHDB will ensure that any new activities do not undermine or detract from its core activities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about a statutory register of levy payers. Such a register was consulted on but was not supported by industry, so we feel that a voluntary approach is the best way forward. However, we will keep this under review.
We are keen to ensure that the AHDB does not intend to operate where there is already a trade body or consultancy delivering a viable solution. The AHDB intends to use this expanded scope only where there is a unique need from industry that is not being met somewhere else and where that activity adds value to the levy-funded activity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about the zero-rated levy and asked how long it will continue to be allowed. I am not sure how much I can say because the exact length of a zero-rated temporary levy holiday would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis according to industry needs. However, we would expect this to be a short-term measure of no more than a few months to help the sector through a difficult time. For example, the pig levy holiday introduced last winter to help pig producers through a difficult time lasted one month. I hope that this provides some clarification on the sort of timescales that we envisage it being used for.
The noble Baroness also talked about the evidence needed to support a change in levy rates and asked what kind of evidence Ministers would want to see before a change in the rate would be approved. Ministers would expect to see evidence from the AHDB setting out why a change in the levy was necessary, what the benefits and impacts would be for levy payers and, crucially, the views of levy payers and representative trade bodies on those proposed changes before anything was approved.
I shall focus in a bit more detail on pigs because they were raised in the debate. Most pig contractors who raise pigs on behalf of larger pig owners do not pay the pig producer levy and so will no longer have voting rights on how the levy is spent. It is right that only those who pay the pig levy should be able to vote on levy spend priorities. This will result in a smaller number of pig producers voting on levy matters in future, which is consistent with recent consolidation in the sector. Currently, the wide definition of “keepers of pigs” means that anyone who keeps a few pigs but does not pay the producer levy could have undue influence on the outcome of a vote on how the levy is spent. It is therefore right that the vote is limited to only those who pay the levy in future.
I hope that I have addressed the issues raised by noble Lords. Once again, I commit to reading back through Hansard to check whether there are any specific questions that I have missed; I will write to all members of the Grand Committee if I have. I hope that noble Lords will approve this instrument, thus ensuring that the AHDB can continue to deliver value for money and support farmers for years to come.
Tobacco and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham
That the Grand Committee do consider the Tobacco and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 45th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this instrument is to implement the EU Commission delegated directive (EU) 2022/2100 of 29 June 2022, which amends directive 2014/40/EU—the tobacco products directive—to withdraw certain exemptions in respect of heated tobacco products placed on the Northern Ireland market.
The instrument amends the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016—the TRPR—in relation to Northern Ireland. The regulations will apply to producers, suppliers, retailers and wholesalers that produce or supply heated tobacco products for consumption in Northern Ireland. Subject to the regulations being approved by Parliament, they are due to come into force on 23 October 2023.
The regulations apply to Northern Ireland only and are made for the purposes of dealing with matters arising from the Windsor Framework. The SI implements a change so that, from 23 October 2023, heated tobacco products can no longer have a characterising flavour, such as menthol, vanilla and fruit flavours. This is not a ban on heated tobacco, but it will limit the flavours available. A characterising flavour ban is already in place for cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco in the TRPR.
We do not need to make changes in light of the Commission delegated directive’s requirement for heated tobacco products to contain health warnings and information messages if they combust. If heated tobacco products that involve a combustion process were placed on the UK market, they would be regulated as tobacco products for smoking and subject to existing regulations in the TRPR that require these products to contain a combined health warning and information message. There are currently no heated tobacco products on the GB or Northern Ireland markets that involve a combustion process and, as such, they are subject to the labelling requirements applicable to smokeless tobacco products.
A full impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because the costs involved for business fall below the threshold for producing one.
Heated tobacco products on the UK market are produced and manufactured outside the UK by the tobacco industry. The characterising flavour ban will limit the products it can produce and supply to the Northern Ireland market and may impact on profits, in what is a relatively small market for the industry in Northern Ireland.
The DHSC has communicated with the tobacco industry, Northern Ireland retail representatives and enforcement agencies regarding the proposed changes. There is no significant impact on the public sector. Each district council in Northern Ireland will enforce the new requirements. They are not expected to be a significant burden on district councils, given the low use of heated tobacco products in Northern Ireland.
I am content to bring forward this legislation today. These regulations allow us to honour our current commitments under the Windsor Framework and will have limited impact on Northern Ireland business. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his presentation of the statutory instrument. I have to declare an interest: I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and we discussed this SI. There was no dissent from it and there was general support, but we drew it to the attention of your Lordships’ House.
I am a supporter of the Windsor Framework, and any shilly-shallying around it can lead to uncertainty in Northern Ireland. It is important that we and the people of Northern Ireland, particularly businesses, can avail themselves of the economic opportunities in relation to access to the UK internal market and the EU single market.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. Like her, I declare that I am neither a smoker nor a user of vapes.
Despite their technical-sounding name, these regulations are important in their own terms for what they do in this area. However, they are also important in the wider political sense because they are a manifestation of the direct application of European Union law to Northern Ireland as opposed to the decision being made by anyone who has been elected in Northern Ireland, either in the Stormont Assembly or in this Parliament. It is therefore a good illustration, whatever your views may be on the subject, of the issue that is at the heart of the problem now facing Northern Ireland politically and that is causing so many problems in getting the institutions back up and running.
I would have thought that an issue such as this would be something that elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland would wish to consult on, discuss, debate, come to a conclusion on and eventually pass, either at Stormont or at Westminster. However, under the Windsor Framework, which is a version of the original protocol, they are not allowed to do that. This decision, as the papers make clear, is a decision that has been made by the European Union.
I want to explore with the Minister—if he cannot answer these questions today, I would obviously be happy to receive a letter setting out some of the answers in detail—first, what consultation was carried out by the Government, in bringing forward these regulations to implement European Union laws, with anyone in the Department of Health or any other department in the Northern Ireland Executive. This instrument says that it applies changes “to Northern Ireland only”. What is the position in Great Britain and in the rest of the United Kingdom? The committee on which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, serves and to which she referred in this debate references the general restrictions that apply to the market in Great Britain for vaping machines and products but there is nothing there about the actual issue of characterising flavourings, which is the subject of this piece of legislation for Northern Ireland. What consultations have been carried out in Great Britain thus far on whether to go down the same route as the European Union? If it is decided that the rest of Great Britain will not go down that route, what implications does that have for regulatory divergence with the rest of the United Kingdom—namely, Northern Ireland?
For instance, what will happen to somebody who buys or gets a vaping product in England, Scotland or Wales, brings it back to Northern Ireland and uses it, hands it over or sells it to friends? Under the term “supply”, I would have thought that that would be illegal. How will that be enforced—or will it? I have a further question for the Minister. Will there be checks carried out at any point to determine whether people have such products and are bringing them back as an individual for use or for distribution among friends, or even as a small business to sell them? How will that be implemented? If it is to be implemented by surveillance in market, why cannot that happen in relation to a whole lot of other products that are subject to green and red lane checks under the Windsor Framework? Again, I would like the Minister to deal with that question.
We have here before us a statutory instrument that is UK law but applies only to Northern Ireland. However, it has been brought forward at the behest of the requirement under the Windsor Framework to implement EU law. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, serves on the protocol Select Committee with me; we are honoured to do so. We have many examples of legislation from the European Union, applied under the Windsor Framework, which are just applied directly and do not require any UK legislation at all. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why it is that this case requires UK-implementing legislation whereas, in many cases, it does not. It sometimes seems hard to rationalise what the difference is, although I accept that that is a wider question than the Minister be here at this Committee armed to answer. If that could be explained to your Lordships, I would be very grateful, as I would be if the Minister could explain where we might find the list of the statutory instruments that are being brought forward and the Explanatory Memorandum in the case where they are not being brought forward by the Government but are being brought forward by the EU directly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, mentioned the district councils that are required to enforce these regulations. An impact assessment has not been carried out. I would therefore like to know what consultations there have been with the district councils in Northern Ireland, which are under severe pressure at present. What is the estimated cost in terms of enforcement of this and other requirements under the Windsor Framework, given that they have presumably had no consultation from anyone at the Stormont level or, indeed, at the Whitehall level? I would be grateful if the Minister could answer that one.
On the requirement to decide whether a tobacco product has a characterising flavour, the regulation of the European Union sets out the procedures for determining that. It also lays down the procedure for the establishment and operation of an independent advisory panel to assist in this determination. It seems quite convoluted but there you have it: it is in EU law. We are told that, in accordance with the Windsor Framework, both pieces of EU tertiary legislation apply in Northern Ireland. Again, what exactly does that mean in terms? Where is this legislation and will it be brought forward by statutory instrument or directly by the European Union? Will there be a chance to consult on it? If there are to be people appointed to an independent advisory panel, how will we find out how that is done? Questions around that would be deserving of an answer.
Small businesses and retailers in Northern Ireland—small shopkeepers and so on—will have to be aware that, after 23 October this year, they will no longer be able to sell heated tobacco products with a characterising flavour. So where do they get their supplies from? Has anyone talked to the retailers and small shopkeepers? Has anyone sat down with them to say what the impact of this on their businesses will be? Whether or not you agree that this is a good idea—I am not making any pronouncement on that; I have a lot of sympathy with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said on the issue, particularly around young people—it is an issue of process and proper accountability. Who has actually sat down with wholesalers, retailers and shopkeepers and discussed this matter with them? What guarantee is there that these people will be aware of this change in law?
I am aware that I have asked a number of questions and that they are perhaps not all capable of being answered today. However, when they are answered, either here today or by letter, I hope that they will provide some clarity to people on this issue. As I say, it illustrates the issues that we have with a form of legislation for part of the United Kingdom when the people who make the law are not accountable to anyone in that part of it and nobody elected as a representative of the people in that part of the United Kingdom has any opportunity to have a vote or bring forward legislation in this area.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, it does rather feel like the old days to be transposing EU directives into UK law—the good old days, from my political perspective—but I certainly recognise some of the political challenge that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has outlined around the agreement that the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, signed up to, as confirmed by the current Prime Minister. This is one of the anomalous situations that they have created made real for us because we have to transpose certain elements of EU law specifically into regulations that have an impact on Northern Ireland but not on Great Britain.
The substance of the change seems to us to be entirely sensible from a health perspective. My questions relate to similar areas to those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, around the relationship with Great Britain, but they come from perhaps a slightly different perspective.
My primary question as a health spokesperson is: why not Great Britain? If we are seeking to limit flavoured heated tobacco products today, why are we not limiting them across the entirety of the United Kingdom? Why are we doing it for Northern Ireland only? I have a concern that there may be a “not invented here” syndrome going on. While we have to implement this for Northern Ireland, we have a choice in Great Britain; there is nothing to stop us imposing similar limitations on Great Britain. I would be concerned if the position of His Majesty’s Government is almost that we are aiming to be awkward and are somehow deliberately misaligning with something that has a public health benefit.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I start by thanking the Minister for introducing these regulations, which we welcome, and expressing my appreciation for the way he set out their application, the summary of which is that, from October, it will be illegal in Northern Ireland to produce or sell heated tobacco products that have what is called a “characterising flavour”. As the Minister explained, this change is happening because of the requirements of the Windsor Framework and in response to a policy change implemented by the EU—more of that later.
With regard to heated tobacco products, unsurprisingly, some in the tobacco industry have claimed that they are less harmful than conventional smoking. Has the Minister had time to review the analysis by the University of Bath, which has shown that most of the studies referred to in order to back up said claim were either affiliated with or funded by the tobacco industry? Surely that raises a considerable flag. Conversely, the European Respiratory Society has pointed to independent research showing that heated tobacco products emit substantial levels of toxicity as well as other irritant substances. Although the use of these harmful products is said to be very low in Northern Ireland, they are increasingly being marketed, without evidence, as a healthier alternative to smoking.
On that point, I would like to pursue the questions that have been asked by noble Lords in the course of this debate about whether there are plans to adopt similar legislation here so that there is parity between England and Northern Ireland; and whether there have been discussions with the other devolved Administrations in order to ensure that there is parity in legislation and, therefore, not the problems across borders that have been described. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, explored this matter extremely well. I was particularly taken with the obvious practical example that somebody can purchase a product here and take it to Northern Ireland. What is the implication of that? That is going to happen all the time; it is just a fact. I am sure that all noble Lords will be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that.
Have the Government made any assessment of the prevalence of heated tobacco product use across the rest of the United Kingdom, principally in England, along with the wider health implications of such use? Perhaps the Minister could also outline what action his department is taking to combat the increased marketing of such products—marketing that is often underpinned by spurious tobacco industry-backed research, as I referred to earlier.
As was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Allan, can the Minister set out how the Government will assist Northern Ireland in the implementation of the ban, particularly given the possibility of illegal importation from England? It certainly seems strange—this point has come out in the debate—that, following the implementation of the draft regulations, there will be more stringent legislation in place to clamp down on heated tobacco products in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Can the Minister assist us in trying to understand how that will help? Are the Government considering implementing a ban on these products in their tobacco control plan, which was promised by the end of 2021? That leads me to the question of when—indeed, whether—we will ever see it published?
I want briefly to highlight concerns in relation to children and young people in particular. I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred to the fact that it was in the light of increased sales volumes among under-25s that the EU amended its legislation on heated tobacco products. In this regard, the Health and Social Care Committee in the other place recently took evidence from not only health experts but the industry. It made for interesting reading. The committee heard evidence that the topic of conversation for young people in the playground was often the different flavours that they were trying, such as
“Gummy Bear, Slushy and … Unicorn Milk and Unicorn Frappé”.
This was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allan. These are different flavourings that are clearly not aimed at an adult audience. While we are talking about vanilla and other flavours in heated tobacco products, does the Minister agree that it will not be long before we see them being extended to products that are deliberately constructed to be attractive to children to get them to take up smoking? What is the strategy to deal with this?
It is absolutely crucial, in dealing with tobacco control and ensuring that we reduce harm to the health of people of all ages, that we look ahead. I hope that these regulations and the debate around them, including noble Lords’ contributions, will again alert the Minister to the need to anticipate future developments in tobacco products, not just in Northern Ireland but across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. As ever, they showed that there are interesting intricacies in every part of health; it is one of my key learnings over the past nine or 10 months that I have been in this role.
I want to clear up one thing. I admit that there was a bit of confusion on my part, as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said, we are not talking about vapes here—we are talking about heated tobacco. There is a heated tobacco stick, which basically heats to temperatures lower than that of a cigarette and releases an aerosol. I am sorry if noble Lords knew that already, but I thought that was worth clarifying. Because of that, this product is used by a very small number of people. It is estimated that less than 0.5% of smokers use this product; if you apply that to the population, it is 0.065%. I hope that this gives some sort of clarification behind our decision, when we talk about whether we did an impact assessment, because we are talking about very small numbers being involved here.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. In relation to what he said about the transport of these substances, I indicated the issue of regulation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Allan. In the past, during our troubled history, cigarettes were used as a form of smuggling, and also used as contraband by paramilitary organisations. The Minister says there is only minor use of these cartridges, for want of a better description—but I have seen them sold along with cigarettes in locked-up containers in shops, and young people purchasing them, particularly the fruit-flavoured ones. If they do not have access to that, how will they be able to get them? What mitigation and control measures will be put in place to prevent them becoming like contraband and being abused by erstwhile paramilitary organisations?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that remark. I think that I probably need to give that a detailed response as well. The point I was trying to make was that these heated tobacco products are a very small part of the market to begin with and the flavoured versions are even smaller again. While the noble Baroness is correct that that potential is there, the amount is very small indeed, but I will give her a detailed response on that.
I have tried to answer the specific points raised; as I say, I will follow up in more detail in writing. We have to honour the regulations set out by our commitments under the Windsor Framework agreement. With that, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Human Medicines (Amendment Relating to Original Pack Dispensing) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham
That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Medicines (Amendment Relating to Original Pack Dispensing) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I am grateful to be here today, as is right, to debate such an important issue. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012—the HMRs—set out when medicines need to be prescription only and requirements for pharmacists selling or supplying prescription-only medicines. This SI will make two amendments to the HMRs to enable original-pack dispensing of medicine—OPD—and to require whole-pack dispensing of medicines containing valproate.
The first amendment, on OPD, is to enable pharmacists and pharmacy staff under their supervision the flexibility to dispense up to 10% more or less of the medicine compared to the quantity prescribed if it means that the medicine can be dispensed in the manufacturer’s original packaging. The second amendment requires medicines containing valproate always to be dispensed in the manufacturer’s original packaging, supplying a quantity as close to the quantity prescribed as possible, with exceptions in specific circumstances when the prescribed quantity must be dispensed.
The aims of enabling OPD and requiring whole-pack dispensing of medicines containing valproate are to increase patient safety by ensuring that patients receive the necessary information that is included on, as well as inside, the manufacturer’s original packaging about the safe and effective use of a product. A further aim of OPD is to support efficiencies in community pharmacies.
The Human Medicines Regulations require that a pharmacy may not sell or supply prescription-only medicine except in accordance with a prescription given by an appropriate practitioner. Currently, we interpret dispensing
“in accordance with a prescription”
to mean that pharmacists must supply the exact quantity of medicine prescribed, with a few exceptions where it is practically impossible or very difficult to split the original pack. This means that, where the quantity prescribed on a prescription is not equal to or multiples of a pack size, pharmacy staff need to split the manufacturer’s original pack. In order to dispense the prescribed quantity, the medicine may be supplied in a plain dispensing box or bottle or in the manufacturer’s original packaging but with some taken out. In the case of tablets and capsules, this usually means snipping the strip of medicines.
When supplying in plain dispensing packaging, pharmacies look to provide patient information leaflets but this may not always happen. Patients certainly will not receive or have the opportunity to read the safety information printed on the manufacturer’s original packaging. Further, they may get a collection of snipped strips in a plain dispensing box, which makes it difficult to know whether they have taken their tablet that day or how many tablets they have left and therefore when they need to reorder their medicines. Where patients get the manufacturer’s original pack but with some tablets taken out, and where any tamper-evident seal is broken, they may be concerned that their medicines have been interfered with.
In the case of medicines containing valproate, these amendments will mean that they must always be dispensed in whole packs in the manufacturer’s original packaging, regardless of the conditions that we set around other products for original package dispensing. The requirement is that the nearest number of whole packs to the quantity prescribed—either rounding up or down—will be supplied so that the patient receives only the manufacturer’s complete original packs. These must not subsequently be repackaged into plain dispensing packaging.
Further to the consultation responses, an exception is being included: pharmacists will be able to make an exception to whole-pack dispensing of medicines containing valproate on an individual patient basis where a risk assessment is in place that refers to the need for different packaging, such as a monitored dosage system, and where processes are in place to ensure the supply of patient information leaflets. The risk assessment might identify that the patient needs different packaging to support them taking their medication. Otherwise, while dispensing in original packs may support increased access to patient information, there is a danger that it may undermine measures being taken to support individual patients to take their medicine appropriately.
Amendments to the HMRs for OPD will enable pharmacists, or pharmacy staff under their supervision, to dispense 10% more or less of the medicine compared to the quantity prescribed if it means that they can dispense the medicine in the manufacturer’s original packaging. However, judgment by the responsible pharmacist will remain a critical part of the process; for instance, there are some prescriptions, such as a course of steroids or antibiotics, where a decision may need to be made to supply the exact quantity prescribed.
It is important to note that OPD will not apply to controlled drugs, which are medicines that have further legal controls on top of those that apply to all prescription-only medicines. This is because they may cause serious problems, such as dependence and harm, if they are not taken as intended by the prescriber or are diverted for other uses. Furthermore, OPD does not apply where a medicine is in a form that is not practicable to dispense in the exact quantity ordered, where there is an integral means of application, where splitting the packaging could adversely affect the medicine, such as inhalers, or where the packaging is keeping the medicine sterile.
Although the flexibility of 10% will not enable all medicines to be dispensed in manufacturers’ original packs, it will deal with the issue of whether a month’s supply is 28 days or 30 days and multiples. For example, if a prescription is for 28 days but the pack has 30 tablets, the 10% flexibly enables the full pack to be supplied and vice versa.
The amendments for OPD will apply across Great Britain and are enabling, so pharmacists can decide whether they utilise OPD 10% flexibilities. A transitional provision has been included so the flexibility to dispense up to 10% more or less does not automatically apply in NHS pharmaceutical services in England and Wales. This will allow these administrations to decide how they want to apply this in their respective NHS services. In Scotland, the OPD 10% flexibility will apply immediately.
The amendments will directly contribute to the overarching objective of safeguarding public health by improving patient safety. Ensuring that patients receive the necessary information included in and on the manufacturer’s original packaging will support them taking their medicine safely and effectively. More patients will receive their medication with any tamper-evident seal intact, which reduces concerns that someone has somehow interfered with the medicine. This amendment will lead to a reduction in the use of plain dispensing packaging so that patients will stop getting lots of small “snips” from a blister strip, which we know will make it easier for them to manage their supply and supports compliance as it makes it easier for patients to identify whether they have taken their tablet that day.
OPD is a commitment in the community pharmacy contractual framework 2019-2024 to support efficiencies for pharmacies. This will help pharmacists and their staff become more efficient as the number of times that they have to snip blisters, repackage medicines and source extra patient information leaflets are reduced, freeing up their time for other tasks such as providing clinical services to patients.
Both OPD and expanding hub-and-spoke dispensing arrangements are recognised in the primary care recovery plan, published in May 2023. The NHS long-term workforce plan, published in June 2023, highlights hub-and-spoke arrangements alongside the greater use of automation, which would be facilitated by OPD. These plans recognise OPD and hub-and-spoke arrangements as important foundations in the transformation of community pharmacy that, together, aim to facilitate the greater use of automation in order to increase efficiency and free up pharmacists and their staff to be able to provide more clinical interventions.
The benefits of OPD will be synergistic with the benefits of expanding hub-and-spoke arrangements, which we are also progressing and which will need separate further legislative amendments. Hub-and-spoke arrangements are where parts of the dispensing process are undertaken in separate pharmacy premises. Typically, there are many spoke pharmacies to one hub pharmacy. The concept is that the simple, routine aspects of assembling prescriptions can take place on a large scale in a hub that usually makes use of automated processes.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to raise a point. I was intrigued when reading the title of these regulations that they are for England, Wales and Scotland, but they do not include Northern Ireland. While the regulations are designed to increase patient safety and create efficiencies in the pharmacy sector—I agree with all that and think we can all subscribe to it—I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee whether a decision has been made not to apply them to Northern Ireland, whether is it the case that we have no power in this Parliament to apply them to Northern Ireland, whether the Northern Ireland Assembly has any power in this area, or whether, despite what the Minister said in outlining potently and clearly the reasons for these changes, this is something that no elected representative in Northern Ireland, here or in Stormont, has any power over. I would be grateful for clarification.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I start with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. Reading the Explanatory Memorandum, it was curious that in paragraph 10.2 we are told that the consultation was carried out by all the United Kingdom authorities, including
“the Department of Health in Northern Ireland”
yet the regulations clearly state
“England and Wales and Scotland”.
This does not surprise me. We are dealing with two instruments on the same day, one of them Northern Ireland-only and one England, Wales and Scotland-only.
I was curious about the answer on the Northern Ireland instrument, which is that we would need primary legislation, so it is easier to regulate tobacco products in Northern Ireland than it is in England, Wales and Scotland. I hope the reverse does not apply here, and that Northern Ireland is not included because some kind of legislative barrier means that they would find it harder than we would to regulate something which, on the substance of it, seems eminently sensible. Many people outside here might be surprised that pharmacists did not already have some discretion over how they dispense, given that packs are quite often in odd numbers. Having dealt with the scope point, again, the substance of it seems entirely sensible.
This must be a pre-recess present, as it is rare that people bring before us regulations which are good for patients, pharmacists and GPs. It is not only that everybody wins from the change being promoted; the Government have managed to get a “two for the price of one” by incorporating another change, which I know has come up. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and others have campaigned for some time to improve the information given to women who are prescribed sodium valproate. So here we are: we are making two sensible changes in one instrument, and the Government should be congratulated on that.
For once, we have an impact assessment. We have four pages of regulation and 40 pages of impact assessment. My heart always sinks when I see a huge impact assessment but this one was really good. Whoever prepared it should be congratulated. There are lots of really good facts and figures about how prescribing works in the United Kingdom to help support the case, so I thought it was very well worked out. The fact that savings were identified independently for patients, GPs and pharmacists was extremely helpful in trying to assess the impact of the regulations. It highlighted that there is a potential increase in drug costs but that that is far outweighed by the savings that all those other constituencies make.
I would be interested in the Minister’s reaction to one number in it that surprised me. The impact assessment said that the cost of an e-consultation that would be saved—I assume it is for some sort of repeat prescribing —was £1.40. That is a very precise amount, but less than the saving from a patient going to the pharmacist to pick up their drugs. That figure surprised me because it felt low. I would expect a greater saving from reducing the number of e-consultations for people being represcribed drugs. Again, I am curious about where that came from.
I thought the model of trying to price out where the savings are, in a sort of piecework way, was extremely helpful, down to the 45p that will be saved by assistants in pharmacies not spending 90 seconds on splitting packs. That is super precise, but it is the kind of data that we want, and which can be tested to really understand how you are making savings all through the chain.
The other numbers that came out, that were just fascinating, were on the spread of prescriptions of paracetamol. There were two prescriptions for 10,000 paracetamol in there that were checked and found to be correct, which did surprise me. Even more surprising than the two prescriptions for 10,000 were two prescriptions for 1,009 paracetamol each. 1,009 is a very large prime number, so there is no “so many per day”; you cannot divide it by anything to get anything else. I assume that is a mistake, and that they meant to write 1,000 or 100 and stuck a nine on the end, because that is the only way I can think of that any GP would ever prescribe a large prime number of paracetamol.
I welcome more impact assessments like this with fun numbers in them, as they are extraordinarily helpful on a Monday before we head off for our break. More substantively, I genuinely hope that we will see more innovation such as this around prescribing and dispensing, because this is one of the areas that we have talked about a lot with the Minister. If we are to see improvements in primary care, we have to look for the kinds of efficiencies that benefit patients and make everything quicker and easier for the patient, but also make it more cost-efficient, because there are savings to be made that can in turn be ploughed back into the new enhanced services that we want to get from our pharmacists.
Again, as a substantive point, the general sustainability of community pharmacies is a problem. They are not getting the kind of income they need to continue to be present in all our communities. We see that in the closure rates; there are hundreds closing every year. As we look at changes such as this—the Minister talked about things such as the hub and spoke model—we have to bear in mind all the time that if we are making savings and are able to put those savings back into community pharmacies, that will be essential if we are to continue to have the kind of network that we need for the Minister’s ambitious plans.
This is a very welcome development. It is great to get two for the price of one; reducing the risks to pregnant women from sodium valproate is very welcome, but in terms of the scale of the dispensing operation, it is the 10% change that will potentially have a significant impact. As I say, I hope the Minister can commit that savings made through this will go back into that community pharmacy network that we all depend on.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister said in his introduction, this is an important issue. I too express my enthusiasm for this SI. We do not have a lot of SIs for which we have a lot of enthusiasm, so I hope the Minister and his team will be very happy with that. The reason for that is that this is common-sense and practical, and provides savings that can be diverted to benefit elsewhere, but also increases patient safety and is a better service to patients. It also allows pharmacists and their teams to do the job they are there for. That, in itself, is somewhat liberating for members of the healthcare team, so it is very welcome.
I also felt that the Minister had given an extremely detailed and welcome introduction, so I will just focus on a few questions in that regard. The first is about pharmacists. Given the changes and the impetus on pharmacists’ professional judgments, will there be any extra training, checks, reviews or similar put in place? I talk about the review not just to ensure that it is doing the job; are there other innovations that we can welcome in SIs in the future? That would be a very positive outcome.
Lord Markham (Con)
As ever, I thank noble Lords for their constructive comments and general welcoming of the proposals.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, unfortunately, we do not have the power. It is one of those bizarre situations whereby the Windsor agreement enabled us to follow what is happening in the EU but, for other matters such as these, it requires the involvement of the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly where we instigate moves from this side. It is a concern; I am concerned. We have all welcomed the benefits here today as an example, but they are benefits that Northern Ireland obviously will not receive.
One of the things that I am responsible for in the department are the rule changes that are happening. It is a general concern in Northern Ireland. We will talk about this in the new year but there are some very exciting medicine developments, for instance point-of-care medicines. We see as one of the benefits that we can get on and move quickly in those areas. It is a concern that we may, again, have to do them as GB-only if there is no functioning Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. I have met Northern Ireland Office Ministers to express this concern; they are aware of it. From their point of view, they are doing everything they can to try to get the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly up and running, but I appreciate that these are complex issues. I know that that is not an ideal response but that is the position that we find ourselves in at the moment.
On the other points, I appreciate the welcome given to these regulations and, in particular, the impact assessment. I will directly, for the benefit of Hansard, thank the team for it. It is appreciated. As has been said, there is incredible attention to detail in it. I am impressed by the attention to detail shown by the noble Lord, Lord Allan; I wonder how he is going to occupy himself over the Recess without impact assessments. Seriously, these are a set of well-thought-out, sensible arrangements and, as has been said, are an exemplar of how we should be doing these things.
On the question about savings, my understanding is that they will be seen by pharmacists themselves and people in their stores. They will be getting paid and they will be keeping it in the system, so to speak. This will help their viability, which the noble Lord, Lord Allan, mentioned.
The point on extra training and checks is well made. I know that that is being kept under review. It is a good point that we need to make sure that it is diarised formally so that we can assess it, particularly in terms of risk assessment. How it was explained to me is that we are talking more about where a person has many medications so it is better for them to have a blister pack-type format and they may not be of child-bearing age so making sure that they can take the correct medicine each day outweighs the risk of side effects for an unborn baby. That is one of the examples that have been described to me of where a logical case can be seen.
Noble Lords might be aware that there is also concern about potential fathers taking valproate pre-conception and how that can have an impact. This is primarily a concern for women of child-bearing age but potentially for males as well, hence the suggestion about the packaging.
As ever, I will respond in writing, but I am not aware that this will specifically impact GPs because they will continue to prescribe in the same way. It will be for pharmacists to use their judgment to make sure that they round up or down for the packaging or dispensing, in the case of valproate in its original form. I repeat that I will write in detail but, off the top of my head, I do not think it will have an impact on GPs.
The wider point is that this should help pharmacists in a lot of their processes. The need to sometimes make judgment calls means that they will obviously need to apply a bit more intelligence but, on balance, we believe that those cases will be isolated enough to be outweighed by the benefits of whole packaging. In response to the points made earlier, that is exactly the sort of thing we should consider when we review it all. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, mentioned, the whole point is to free up some pharmacy time so that pharmacists can spend it where they want to on patient care.
I will happily follow up in detailed writing on all the questions. I thank noble Lords for their input; as ever, it was a very interesting debate. I echo the wishes for a happy recess; personally, I cannot wait. Although I will be doing a lot of hospital visits, as I mentioned, it will indeed be lovely. On that note, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
Introduction: Lord Houchen of High Leven
Cabinet Manual
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to submit a draft revised Cabinet Manual to the appropriate committees of both Houses for their comments.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s current intention is to share draft material for review in the autumn. The Cabinet Secretary wrote to the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in June to set out this plan. Since then, officials have been engaging with the clerks of the committees, and they will continue to do so over the summer to provide the latest information.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that welcome confirmation of news that progress is at last being made. It is now 18 months since the noble Lord, Lord True, in answering the debate on the Constitution Committee’s report, said he regretted that there had not yet been a revision. There have been five revisions of the Ministerial Code since 2015 and four of the special advisers’ code, but none of this code. Does the Minister agree that it is extremely important to have these consultations completed and the draft published in final form before the likely date of the next election, to ensure that the constitutional transfer of authority after the next election—to whichever Government are then formed—is conducted according to the rules laid out in the Cabinet Manual as revised?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. The Cabinet Secretary made it clear in his letter to the committees that the plan was to complete the work so that the new and revised Cabinet Manual could be published in good time for the next general election.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that the Opposition should be consulted on this, just in case the next incumbent should be Keir Starmer? Could it perhaps start with an undertaking that—in the absence today of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy—we revert to the “good chaps” theory of government whereby the Prime Minister and all Ministers keep to not just the law but the spirit of the law?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The procedure we are going to follow is to engage the committees, as I explained, because they can do a good job in bringing together the views of parliamentarians on the Cabinet Manual. Obviously, in due course the revised manual will become available, but the first step will be to consult the committees. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake —I am not sure whether she is in her place—led a very good debate in the autumn on this matter. We will also consult key academics. As the noble Baroness said, it is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is not in his place. However, I make the point that the Cabinet Manual records rules and practices; it is not intended to be the source of new rules.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the duty on Ministers to adhere to the constitutional principles of the Cabinet Manual will be included in its foreword when it is next produced?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will check to see whether that is intended, but I will certainly look very positively at the point the noble Lord has made, and, indeed, at the Seven Principles of Public Life. Having now had to study the Cabinet Manual, I think it provides a very important landscape that references various bits of guidance such as the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code, which are also important in their own right. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, explained, these tend to be amended a little more frequently.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will the Cabinet Manual ensure that Parliamentary Answers are full and accurate and that, regarding ministerial correspondence, people can expect replies within a matter of days, if not weeks? That used to be the position but, since I was a boy, things seem to have deteriorated.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend. As I explained, it is to some extent an outline document. There is guidance on ministerial correspondence, which he may not be aware of; I will certainly send him a link to it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, when the last Cabinet Manual was considered and the Scotland Act was passed through both Houses of this Parliament, it was never envisaged that a Scottish Government would stray into reserved areas, as they are now doing. Therefore, there are no sanctions that the UK Government can impose on that kind of action. Could this be considered when the Cabinet Manual is revised?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will certainly take that point away. It is obviously a UK Government document; it is signed off by UK Ministers, who are accountable to the UK Parliament. However, one of the revisions that will be needed relates to the changes in the devolution settlements. I think there have been two Wales Acts and two Scotland Acts since the manual was last revised.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will this work also look at Written Questions that remain unanswered after 10 working days? I refer to page 10 of today’s Order Paper, which lists more than 11 questions, one of which, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, goes back to 19 June. That simply is not acceptable.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I share the noble Lord’s concerns about delays to answering Parliamentary Questions, which we all try to do our best to answer in time. When departments get behind, we are rightly chided, and I will certainly look at the point. The Cabinet Manual is perhaps a little broader and more strategic, but that is not a reason not to make sure that we are respecting Parliament through the speed with which we answer Questions, which we all find so useful in keeping us up to date on many matters.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, that is a very interesting point. I have tabled Written Questions, asked Oral Questions and received Answers which I am sure were given in good faith, only for someone else then to make an FoI request and for different information to come back, which was then sent to me. The Minister acted perfectly properly, but it cannot be right for an FoI request to give different information from that in the response to a Written Question or Oral Question. Can the Minister look at that?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
If the noble Lord would be kind enough to share the example with me, as I look after FoI requests and many Parliamentary Questions, I will see what happened.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, further to the answer my noble friend gave me, in which she said that guidance was provided on this, it is absolutely apparent that that guidance is not being followed. Could the code be strengthened so that we get proper Answers, and so that Ministers, particularly in this place, are given proper briefing by officials?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That probably goes beyond the Cabinet Manual point and may be more urgent. I will see what I can do for my noble friend.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, did I hear from the Minister that she finds Questions very useful so far as the Government are concerned? Would she therefore welcome an extension of Question Time, to make us even more useful?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That matter would be beyond my responsibility. As I was speaking, I was thinking of the Written Questions I get and how they are often seen as a poor relation. However, in them I am asked about things I do not necessarily know about, and as a Minister I—perhaps curiously—find that useful. When at the Dispatch Box during Question Time, one often looks at the Clock, so one would have to look at it for longer.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, to return to the general point, the Minister may have considered that we might be changing from one Government to another after the election, which will overlap with the United States doing the same. We have seen, painfully, from the last transfer of power in the United States that one should never take the constitutional transfer of power for granted. The Cabinet Manual is most useful during a change of government, as many of those who have commented on it have said. Is the Minister conscious that one needs to push to ensure that it is therefore available for all those who might be Ministers after the next election, well before the campaign starts?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. I said that we are looking ahead to timing, bearing in mind the general election, and I repeat that undertaking. I am glad that he mentioned the United States, where there is a very different system, involving a written constitution. One of the strengths of our constitution, and indeed of our history, is its flexibility and ability to evolve according to changing circumstances. Since the last Cabinet Manual, we have had a lot of changes in circumstances—Covid, Ukraine, Brexit and so on.
Ukraine: Ammunition and Missiles
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government what orders they have made so far, by weapon type, to replace ammunition and missile stocks given to Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm that a number of substantial contracts have been placed to directly replace munitions granted in kind to Ukraine. The contracts secured so far include orders for next generation light anti-tank weapons, Starstreak high-velocity missiles, lightweight multirole missiles, Javelin missiles, Brimstone missiles, 155-millimetre artillery rounds and 5.56-millimetre rifle rounds.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. There is no doubt that it has been a long time before we have got various orders in. The Ukrainian war started 17 months ago, and a number of Members in this House, including the noble and gallant Lord on the Cross Benches, have referred to the fact that we need to put in various orders. That is not surprising, because for too long we have run a just-enough and just-in-time philosophy for war stocks and replacing ammunition and missiles. We are not a Marks & Spencer knocking out women’s underwear—that is not the basis on which we are providing stuff; it is much harder to provide missiles and weapons systems. Looking to the future, would it be possible for a cross-party initiative to produce a defence-industrial strategy that looks at making sure that our defence industries are sufficiently paid for, so that they can boost the supply of weapons in crisis and war?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware of two things. There has been an extensive supply of weapons to Ukraine, evidenced by the recent Written Statement that I laid before this House on 20 July. He will also be aware that there has been an overall challenge with the industry, experienced by other NATO members, because some of them were not production ready; we know that. The MoD has engaged closely. The industry is now in a much healthier state and I hope the recent list of orders, which I indicated, reflects that much healthier state and that the MoD is satisfied that, along with our NATO partners, industry is now geared up to supply what is needed.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, how many of the various types of ammunition and other missiles that were ordered were ordered from UK producers and how many from overseas?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The recent munitions contract for the 155-millimetre artillery shells is with BAE Systems, and part of this agreement involves an order for 30-millimetre cannon rounds and 5.56-millimetre rifle rounds. We have also placed orders with Thales—that is for the NLAWs—and there is a lot of activity now with our UK manufacturers.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, while I am encouraged by what my noble friend the Minister says about replenishing stocks, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord West—perhaps unusually—that we must have a steady supply base. We have stopped asking for certain bits of ammunition and supply chains have dropped. I am afraid that defence is expensive and, as we now know, it is very expensive if you happen to be sitting in Ukraine.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Yes, and precisely that challenge has been acknowledged both by the Government and particularly by the MoD. My noble friend will recall that we have granted £2.3 billion-worth of military aid in 2022-23 and we are committed to repeating that for 2023-24. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord West, industry is now in a much more resilient position than it was, thankfully. We are satisfied that we have the funding streams, which are already public, to sustain a regular replenishment flow.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister’s answers today are encouraging, but the Written Ministerial Statement that sneaked out at the end of last week, seemingly to coincide with the Question from the noble Lord, Lord West—rather like the Etherton report coming out on the day of the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden—raises the question of whether the Government are being sufficiently proactive with information. In particular, the Written Ministerial Statement gives us data and says:
“The data below was last provided to the House … on 21 July 2022”.
Will it be possible for the House to be informed of equipment, ammunition and so on far more regularly post Recess?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has indicated why the Written Ministerial Statement came out when it did. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State produced one a year ago and undertook to do that. I think the noble Baroness will understand that the provision of ammunition to Ukraine is a fluid and fast-moving scenario. We respond to the requests. We do our best to ensure that we provide Ukraine with what it actually needs. The effect of that is already being seen in the conflict zone. The noble Baroness will be aware that on 21 July my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary sent out a very helpful letter that detailed a raft of information that I think is very useful not just to the other place but to this Chamber.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, further to that question and to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord West, I am sure the Minister agrees that:
“We must shift our whole organisational culture away from the previous peacetime mentality to one where we live and operate as we would fight, focusing more on outputs than inputs”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/23; col. 788.]
I am quoting the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons last week, so I am sure she agrees with that. The truth is that the Ukraine war has exposed the difficulty of increasing defence production quickly and the vulnerability of our supply chains. Is it not time now that the Government publish a full strategic plan to set out how to remedy this, not only because it is vital to our economy but because it will be crucial to the prosecution of the war?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I say to the noble Lord, in reference to the answers I have already given, that there is a very clear picture of how both the Government and industry have responded to this challenge. Industry was indeed operating on a peacetime expectation, and that has been shattered by the illegal war in Ukraine. From the information already provided, to which I have referred, it is obvious that a vast amount of work is going on. The MoD has already commenced a lot of the commendable reform work indicated in its Defence Command Paper refresh. I am satisfied that it is a fighting fit, ready-for-purpose department.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, is there any way of maintaining the export of grain through Odessa without the agreement of the Russians?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The simple answer is that it would be very difficult. Russia’s termination of the grain agreement is serious and is having a humanitarian impact. Alternative ways of getting grain out of Ukraine are being investigated, but Russia is pivotal to the smooth flow of that grain.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, given the importance of increasing the supply of ammunition to Ukraine, and the stockpiles, can the Minister reassure us that everything is in place to get this done as quickly as possible? Can she reassure us about steps the Government are taking to ensure that happens?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I gave some indication of some of the contracts that have been placed; these are already in place for delivery. Of course, there are other arms of delivery through the NATO action plan and the International Fund for Ukraine. These agencies are working hard with the defence industry to aggregate production of ammunition and give Ukraine what it needs.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister answer the simple question: do the new contracts merely replenish the stocks, or do they maintain the means of production?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I think the answer is that they are doing both. We are now looking at this as a more holistic supply. We are not necessarily replacing like for like, as the noble and gallant Lord will be aware. That means that industry is moving on to a more resilient, innovative platform, to ensure that it can meet these new types of demand.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as the Government’s defence exports advocate, and as a serving member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces. My noble friend is quite right that more orders are being placed, but the fact remains that, unlike the maritime industrial base, we have allowed the land industrial base to atrophy over many years. That has been because of the inconsistency of orders to industry. Given that we need a regular tempo of orders, what conversations has my noble friend had with our NATO allies, so that we can work together to ensure that regular tempo is ordered to industry?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his contributions on all fronts, which are very much appreciated. There has been very focused endeavour at the NATO end. That has been manifest on a number of occasions, most recently in Vilnius when the Prime Minister was there with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary. On 15 June, the United States hosted the Ukraine defence contact group. On 16 June, at the NATO Defence Ministers’ meeting, the Defence Secretary announced an additional £60 million in funding from the UK. All this is indicative of activity that is about ensuring a regular drum beat of orders to the defence industry. It is not just the United Kingdom; all our partners and allies are making the same requests.
Digital Economy Agreements
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many digital economy agreements the United Kingdom has made and with which countries; and how many are expected by 31 December.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare my technology interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, under the UK’s G7 presidency we brokered the G7’s digital trade principles. Further digital agreements sit at the heart of our agreements with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, EEA/EFTA and CPTPP. Our digital agreements with Singapore and Ukraine are the most innovative trade deals signed. We continue to push our digital objectives at the WTO e-commerce joint initiative and via the digital trade commitments in our suite of upcoming free trade agreements.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that digital economy agreements represent the very future of trade? We must ensure particularly that small and medium-sized enterprises are fully aware of this opportunity. Does he further agree that when we put DEAs together with the recently passed Electronic Trade Documents Act, we can really believe that we are on the brink of a new golden age for international trade?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I entirely agree with my noble friend. Our vision is for the UK to be a global leader in digital trade, with an entire network of international agreements that drive economic growth, create jobs and improve productivity throughout the UK.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, how do the Government intend to ensure that while conforming to the terms of digital trade agreements such as the UK/Singapore agreement, or the digital terms of the CPTPP, they still retain data adequacy for EU purposes? Is the Government’s market-driven championing of the international flow of data and the terms of these agreements not in conflict with that?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
No, my Lords, I am not sure that they are in conflict. Technological advances in free trade agreements will ensure that this country, among others, will be able to trade freely with a very wide range of companies and countries.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, digital transformation could grow the UK economy by more than £413 billion by 2030, equivalent to around 19% of the entire UK economy. That is more than twice the annual output of the UK’s manufacturing sector. Surely we should be turbocharging DEAs with as many countries as possible. Why are we so slow, and what assessment have the Government made of the size and experience of negotiating teams as part of the recent machinery of government changes?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point: anything that improves the speed of these free trade agreements can only be for the benefit of the country. The ones we are looking at at the moment are with India, Switzerland, Israel, Canada, Mexico and the GCC, and digital economy agreements will be in every one. There are digital trade provisions in a further 30 to 40 free trade agreements: I am very happy to give him a list but I do not think it is appropriate to read it out now. The very heart of this is making trade easier, faster, more secure and of course cheaper.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I shall have another go. The Minister really did not answer my question on data, so perhaps I should put it another way. Can the UK ensure regulatory interoperability among free trade agreement partners with different data protection regimes given the discrepancy in their regulatory frameworks? What I am trying to find out is the care with which these agreements have been negotiated with regard to data adequacy.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I absolutely understand the point and I am assured that the security of data is second to none throughout these free trade arrangements, but I will be very happy to write with the full details.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, in addition to the work on the international stage that my noble friend mentioned, does he also recognise the opportunity here for English law to become the system of law underpinning these new ways of doing international trade? Our Victorian forebears made English law the international law of commerce, with negotiable bills of lading and bills of exchange. The work done by the Law Commission on the Electronic Trade Documents Act and the speeches given by the Master of the Rolls show how English law can now be the law underpinning cyber-transactions and blockchain. Will my noble friend ensure that equal weight is given by the department to that part of this very important work?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I shall certainly do all that I can. I believe that in the agreement we reached with Singapore, which was fundamental in the success that we have just achieved at CPTPP, and the agreement with Ukraine, the basis of the law used has been widely praised. It is expected that it will be used as a form for going forward.
Stroke Care
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they are ensuring that integrated care systems across England implement recommended best practice in stroke care in line with the updated National Clinical Guideline for Stroke, published in April.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The National Clinical Guideline for Stroke, published in April 2023, is an initiative of the intercollegiate stroke working party made up of representatives from the professional bodies involved in stroke care. National regional SQuIRe managers, who are responsible for managing stroke services, are working with integrated stroke delivery networks and newly formed integrated care systems to implement the NHS integrated community stroke service and improve the provision of community-based stroke rehabilitation.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the update of the national stroke guidelines is welcome, particularly its now UK-wide remit, with one of its major changes being significant expansion in the number of patients eligible for thrombolysis and thrombectomy. Given that both these powerful clot-busting interventions are most effective the faster they are used following a stroke, what assessment has been made of the impact of the current NHS delays in the expansion of their respective uses and how will the Government ensure that ICSs address the huge regional variations in both thrombectomy and in the vital post-stroke rehabilitation in hospital and at home that is so necessary?
Lord Markham (Con)
First, I thank the noble Baroness for the work that she does in this area; I know that it is very close to her heart. I have set up a meeting with the NHS COO David Sloman and with Sarah-Jane Marsh, and would be delighted if the noble Baroness would like to join me. The benefit of these sessions is always the shining of a light on areas.
It is vital that people are seen within the first hour; currently 59% of people are, which is an improvement on the last couple of years when the figure was 55%. However, we would all agree that we want that number to be as high as possible. The SQuIRe managers’ job is to make sure that all the different integrated care boards are delivering best practice in each area.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, what role will NHS England play in first collecting information, monitoring it, evaluating it and disseminating it across the UK to ensure best practice, and how often does it undertake to do this?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. The NHS delivery plan set out in January 2023 was trying to set out the best practice in this area. It is then the job of the SQuIRe managers to make sure that that is implemented in each area. One example is that they are trialling having videos in ambulances in certain areas so that paramedics can speak to stroke experts. We all know that getting patients to the right place quickly is vital, so I hope that that is another example of best practice that we can roll out.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, these guidelines are very encouraging, and all who work on them should be congratulated. As we keep hearing, the essence is speed if we are to treat effectively, yet this is particularly difficult in rural areas, especially remote rural areas. What additional help is being given to integrated care boards’ care systems to ensure that our rural integrated care boards can deliver these guidelines, which are so vital?
Lord Markham (Con)
The job of each integrated care board and the regional SQuIRe managers within it is to make sure that they are catering for the needs of their area. Clearly, rural areas present more challenges in terms of speed of access to the relevant stroke services. At the same time, there has been a rollout of the integrated stroke networks that can perform the clot-busting treatments to make sure that we have more of them located in the right places.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, we are fortunate to have the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme—SSNAP—to help us monitor compliance with the national guideline. In its very good easy access report for the first quarter of this year, it tells us that three out of five stroke patients are not taken to a stroke unit immediately and it calls for urgent action in this area. What are the Government doing to make sure that stroke patients are immediately admitted to stroke units in line with that guideline?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct. As mentioned, speed to the right place is vital; videos in ambulances are one way of communicating ahead and speaking to the paramedics so that they are ready to receive them, which is really important. The latest data I have seen is that 92% of people are now sent straight to the stroke ward on arrival, which sounds promising but is somewhat at odds with the Sentinel figure he mentioned. I will find out more about that and get back to the noble Lord.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
I speak with experience, having seen my wife suffer a very serious stroke more than a decade ago. As the right reverend Prelate said, speed is of the essence. Not one but two ambulances arrived within 15 minutes and she was in hospital within 25 minutes; they saved her life at Chester County Hospital. Does the Minister agree that things have got worse and worse over the last decade and that, unfortunately, people are dying?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree that last winter was particularly difficult; as we all know, ambulance wait times were too long, which undoubtedly caused issues. We have a recovery plan for the emergency services and have invested more in ambulances, but it is all about flow, which we have spoken about many times in this House, and making sure that people can get to where they need to be as soon as possible.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will take this opportunity to ask my noble friend a more general question about guidelines. I am sure he receives correspondence about parts of the NHS not meeting guidelines, not only on strokes but on other issues. What are the Government and the NHS doing to make sure that, where there are guidelines, they are followed through and adopted by ICSs and medical practitioners right across the system?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. As we all agree, there are always two steps involved: setting out the guidelines that we believe are best practice and making sure that they are then implemented. ICBs have that responsibility and regional managers look into them. As I think I have mentioned before, each Minister personally takes charge of six or seven ICBs—I will visit a few of them in the next few weeks during Recess—so we can make sure that they are really delivering on the ground.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Getting It Right First Time report has shown that 29 recommendations are needed for strokes and its wider programme has shown what works in the healthcare system to improve care and save lives. What levers do the Government have when integrated care boards do not implement best practice to save lives and improve health in an area?
Lord Markham (Con)
There are a number of things. For want of a better phrase, we have a tier rating for the different trusts and hospitals and they can be put into the equivalent of special measures—that is not the right term, but the noble Lord knows what I am referring to. Ultimately, the NHS and Ministers also have the ability to hire and fire, as we know that leadership is vital in all these areas.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests. It is clearly important that stroke networks are properly supported to deliver clinical care efficiently and effectively but, beyond the capacity to do that, there must also be ongoing capacity to participate in further research and development and to provide the opportunity for appropriate clinical evaluation of innovations that will yet further improve outcomes for those suffering ischemic stroke. Is the Minister content that there is sufficient support for that activity in stroke networks?
Lord Markham (Con)
A lot of good work is being done. AI is often used to analyse brain scans very quickly in a lot of these centres that the noble Lord mentions. One of the very good things about trusts is that they have a lot of independence to develop their own initiatives, but sometimes the challenge—which I have really taken up—is getting that innovation adopted widely. I and the Secretary of State are great believers in that but, candidly, we need to work harder on it.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I invite the Minister to visit A&E departments and note the chronic lack of resources and capacity. I will give a personal example. I took my son to the local A&E as he had some life-threatening issues. We arrived at 12.13 pm on a Wednesday and a bed was found at 2.30 am the next morning; no spare bed could be found in any of the adjacent hospitals at all. When was the last time the Minister visited an A&E department and what did he notice?
Lord Markham (Con)
In the last few weeks, I have been in A&E departments most weeks. Over the Recess, I will be visiting another 15 or so hospitals—I cannot remember the exact number, but it is a big one. That will be to see the A&E and the new hospital programme that I am responsible for. I agree with the noble Lord that there is nothing like visiting a place to really understand the problems and get on top of them.
Housing and Planning: Policy Changes
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
To ask His Majesty’s Government what changes they plan to make to housing and planning policy.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and I draw attention to my interests in the register as I am a serving councillor on both Stevenage Borough Council and Hertfordshire County Council.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
Thank you. The Government will meet their manifesto commitment to deliver 1 million homes over the course of this Parliament. This is through the regeneration of places, including ambitious plans in Cambridge, London and Leeds. We are consulting on permitted development rights and local plans, increasing funding to unblock the planning backlog and launching the Office for Place to lead a design revolution. The system, enhanced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, will therefore ensure that development is sustainable and welcomed by its communities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this announcement—slipped out today after the Commons has gone into Recess—only serves to reinforce the impression of a Government in chaos over the multiple layers of housing crisis our country is now facing. With over 1 million people on social housing waiting lists and 7,000 social rented homes built last year, does the Minister really think that a few flats built over chip shops is going to solve the problem? It is like putting a sticking plaster on a severed limb. Estimates are that we need to build 300,000 homes a year, and we are nowhere near that. Ministers are still ignoring the fact that scrapping local housebuilding targets has sent construction into a nosedive; no reviews, press releases or empty promises can hide that. Can I therefore ask the Minister if the Government have produced an impact assessment of the effect of their proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, including the scrapping of national housebuilding targets? If so, what was the finding of that assessment for housebuilding numbers? We need bold action to get Britain building, and that starts with restoring housing targets.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
With regard to the impact assessment, I will have to get back to the noble Baroness with a response in writing. However, regarding housing supply, we are on track to deliver our target of 1 million homes this Parliament, and we are already almost 70% of the way there. Housing supply has been at a 30-year record level, with the three highest annual rates of housing supply having all come since 2018. More than 2.2 million homes have been delivered in England since 2010, and we remain committed to our target of delivering those 300,000 homes a year. The £11.5 billion affordable homes programme will deliver thousands of affordable homes for both rent and to buy.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, first, will my noble friend clarify whether the new towns policy is now to be revised? If so, that would be enormously welcome. Secondly, is she aware that the private rental market is in chaos at this point in time? Does that not need the urgent attention of Ministers to sort it out? Thirdly, is she aware—I am sure she is—that young couples need the opportunity to buy a home? Are His Majesty’s Government looking seriously at a revised scheme for Help to Buy?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank my noble friend for those multiple questions; I will try and do them justice. Affordable housing is a serious commitment by this Government. Indeed, the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme is delivering thousands of homes both for rent and to buy across the country. The levelling up White Paper committed to increasing the supply of social rented homes, and a large number of the new homes have been delivered through the affordable homes programme so far. With regards to the other questions, I will get back to my noble friend in writing.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that, if we are going to have these targets met to build more houses, we need the people to build them? Can she confirm the figures, that 35% of the construction industry workforce are over the age of 50, and just 20% are under the age of 30? The estimate is that we will need 43,000 more workers in the construction industry per year to fill the gap. What are the Government doing to achieve that?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I do not have the specific numbers with me today and I will make sure that they are provided to the noble Lord by the relevant office. With regards specifically to SMEs, we do have various activities going on to support the sector and to support all of its needs with regards to their supply of the workforce.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am sure we are all delighted that the Government’s housing targets are back on track, but can my noble friend say if His Majesty’s Government have taken note of the Natural England advice to local planning authorities concerning nutrient neutrality, which has resulted in a blockade on new housing development in 14% of England’s land area? Is it the case that the Government will take steps in this regard, as hinted in the press?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
Nutrient pollution is an urgent problem, and the Government are clear that nutrient neutrality can only be an interim solution in the broader context of all the other environmental and biodiversity issues. This is why we are taking significant action to tackle pollution at source and restore our protected sites. Through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, we are ensuring the upgrade of wastewater treatment works in nutrient neutrality catchments by 2030. This will ameliorate pollution at source and help SMEs by reducing the cost of mitigation by up to 96%. Government investments in schemes like the Natural England nutrient mitigation scheme, and the DLUHC’s local nutrient mitigation fund, will further boost the supply of mitigation, which will unlock housing delivery. We are working closely with the Environment Secretary, Natural England and the Environment Agency to consider whether there is more that can be done to accelerate progress in this area. I am looking forward to the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Moylan and his committee on this matter.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the Government have announced that our major towns and cities must increase their housing numbers by 35%—the so-called urban uplift—while simultaneously announcing that the green belt is to be further protected. Where do the Government get the evidence for this significant change in policy direction, inflicting high-density housing, increasing traffic and pollution and a greater strain on all local infrastructure in those areas? Does the Minister not agree with me that all local authorities should shoulder their fair share of meeting the nation’s housing need? When the standard formula is reassessed next year, will it actually reflect fairness and not political expediency?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
The regeneration and renaissance of 20 cities is the fundamental cornerstone of today’s announcements and of those made previously, to accelerate the transformation, intensification and regeneration of our cities, building on the work that we have already seen and started in Wolverhampton and Sheffield. This Government will allocate £800 million from the £1.5 billion brownfield, infrastructure and land fund, to unlock some 56,000 new homes on brownfield sites, taking the infrastructure-first approach to build up our cities, in addition to a further £550 million for Homes England to deploy nationally. They are therefore providing Greater Manchester with some £150 million going to Andy Burnham to unlock some 7,000 new homes, and in the West Midlands some £100 million is going to Andy Street to unlock some 4,000 new homes. They are also creating a new partnership with Leeds City Council to drive housing and regeneration, building up the financial services sector and the new Bank of England presence. All of this is building on brownfield rather than greenfield and of course, as and when necessary, all of these things will come to this House.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Would the Minister care to give us the percentage of land in England covered by national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and the green belt?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I will have to get back to the noble Lord with those specific figures from the department.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, one of the challenges facing rural areas is an acute shortage of affordable housing. Statistics from the National Housing Federation show that social housing waiting lists in rural areas have grown by 31%, compared with just 3% in urban areas. That is having a huge impact on rural sustainability as the average age in those areas increases, leading to the closure of schools, post offices and so on. What is being done specifically to unblock this logjam in providing more affordable housing in rural areas?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble Lord Prelate for that question—
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
Apologies: this is my first time at the Dispatch Box, and appellations are obviously not something I have quite mastered yet.
With regards to social housing, particularly in rural areas, there is a debate on that topic in this Chamber this afternoon, to which I will respond in detail. Of course, this Government are committed to delivering more social housing so that everyone has access to a high-quality, affordable place to live. That remains a key element of our plan to end the housing crisis, tackle homelessness and get more people on to the housing ladder. The £11.5 billion affordable homes programme I previously mentioned will deliver thousands of affordable homes, both for rent and to buy, across the country. It is vital that we build more of those affordable forms of social housing—that is, social rent homes. We have previously said that the affordable homes programme will deliver some 32,000 homes for social rent; we hope we can increase this figure to 40,000 such homes. I understand that that is more challenging to deliver in rural areas, given that we do not have so many high-volume homes. We will address that topic later this afternoon.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests and ask the Minister whether she could reflect on the response she gave about high-quality housing being built. As she will be aware, we are currently building homes that are not fit and not of a standard to deal with the climate we are experiencing now, in terms of both heat and energy efficiency. Higher energy-efficiency standards supported by government actually save tenants and householders money. We are expecting new building standards and new building regs in 2025, yet we are still waiting for a consultation on them. Could the Minister tell me, or write if she does not have the information now, when we are going to see that consultation?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
With regard to the quality of homes, we have a legacy of poor-quality housing stock that is risking people’s health. Since 2010, we have reduced the number of non-decent homes by over 2 million. We are going further in order to halve the number of non-decent rented homes by 2030. We will update the decent homes standard and introduce it in the private rented sector for the first time. We are delivering the Social Housing (Regulation) Act, which achieved Royal Assent last week, which allows the regulator to issue unlimited fines to landlords failing to deliver, as well as to ensure that serious hazards are addressed quickly. Finally, of course, we will ensure the quality of new builds through plans to consult on a future homes standard to create beautiful, sustainable homes and a new homes ombudsman that will hold developers to account for shoddy new builds. I will reply in writing to the rest of the noble Baroness’s questions.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, today’s speech promised radical action to unlock the supply of new homes, which I am sure we all welcome. Can my noble friend say whether today’s announcement will involve any amendments to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill currently before your Lordships’ House? If not, will the Government smile on some of my amendments that have the same objective?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Young for that question. We are bringing forward ambitious and wide-ranging reforms through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which my noble friend will know about—it is currently being debated on Report here in the Lords—including the modernisation of the planning system. The planning measures will, of course, give local leaders and communities the tools they need to regenerate towns and cities, to create better places and to restore local pride. The planning elements of the Bill, as my noble friend will know, including amendments tabled by Peers, will be debated in due course, in early September.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lord, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Young, could I ask the Minister whether the Government plan to table amendments in view of the fact that there have been a substantial number of changes proposed over the last 48 hours in the media? The next day of Report, when we start the planning chapters of the Bill, is on Monday 4 September. Will the Government be proposing amendments to that Bill to reflect the announcement they have just been making?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. It is noted, and I will refer his question to my noble friend the Minister on her return.
International Higher Education and Research Bill [HL]
Monday 24th July 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate International Higher Education and Research Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all International Higher Education and Research Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as recent chairman of the culture and education committee of the Council of Europe.
Official Statistics Order 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Order laid before the House on 19 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 July.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Contest: UK Strategy for Countering Terrorism 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank our agencies and all involved in keeping us safe. The Home Secretary reminded us, just a few days ago, that the threat from terrorism is again rising, and that 39 late-stage terror attacks have been prevented in the last six years. There are many questions, including on the proscription of state actors, but I will concentrate on one aspect. We are told individuals may develop a terrorist mindset during their time in prison and that four of the nine terrorist attacks since 2018 have been perpetrated by serving or recently released prisoners. That is obviously extremely worrying to us all. What more can be done to prevent this radicalisation in prison?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for those comments. I would like to associate myself with his remarks thanking our security services for the work that they do.
The noble Lord is quite right to highlight post-release situations regarding individuals who have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offences. Obviously, they continue to pose a threat, as has been proved in those cases noted. Despite ongoing efforts to mitigate the terrorist risk posed by individuals in custody, the majority still require long-term risk management post release.
However, following the Fishmongers’ Hall attack, we established the probation national security division, doubled the number of specialist counterterrorism probation officers, and allowed for more robust and dedicated risk management of these individuals. Furthermore, all terrorist offenders on probation are now subject to electronic monitoring, and in June 2021 we introduced polygraph testing for terrorist offenders, giving us a powerful tool for monitoring behaviour.
HM Prison and Probation Service, the police and other agencies work closely under MAPPA—the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements framework—to assess, manage and mitigate the risk posed by individuals at all stages through conviction, custody, release, post sentence and notification requirements. There is much more in there about this, but it is certainly safe to say that the Government are well aware of the risk identified by the noble Lord, and are doing a lot about it.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests and specifically to my role as a commissioner on the Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice. Prevent, both as a policy and particularly in its implementation, is deeply controversial. Can my noble friend assist the Government’s case by providing some detail, and specifically some data? It may well be that it he cannot do that today, but perhaps he can write to me. Can he specifically provide data the Government hold on the origin of Prevent referrals—whether by, for example, the police, schools or healthcare—that lead to Channel interventions, data on Channel referrals by age for those under the age of 18, and, finally, data on autism and other forms of neurodiversity among individuals referred to Prevent and to the Channel programme?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question. She is quite right that Prevent can occasionally be characterised as somewhat controversial, but we should remember that it is of course ideologically agnostic. I can give some but not all of the data to which my noble friend refers. Some 3,800 referrals have resulted in individuals receiving support to move away from radicalising ideologies. In the year ending 31 March 2022, there were 6,406 referrals to Prevent, and of those, 13%, or 804, were adopted as Channel cases. I do not have the data as regards age, origin or autism, but I will endeavour to find that out. I do not know whether it is collected but I will certainly try to find out and will write to my noble friend with the answer.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. The Contest review says that the Government are intending full implementation of the recommendations of the independent review of Prevent, yet the Answer to the Question refers to the extent of extreme right-wing terrorism and the implications of that—22% of attacks since 2018 and a quarter of the MI5 caseload. My reading of the review of Prevent, which will now be fully implemented, is that it thinks that the preoccupation with or the amount of time spent on Prevent referrals for domestic extreme terrorists is misplaced and should be reduced, and the focus should be on Islamist terrorism. Can the Minister expand on that? Who then will deal with people who are at risk of becoming domestic extremists?
The other element of the Prevent review is to move away from what is pejoratively described as safeguarding. However, as we know, the route by which people become violent extremists is complicated, and it might make the Prevent strand more acceptable if it was seen as being about safeguarding vulnerable individuals rather than penalising communities.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord raises a couple of interesting points. On the subject of Prevent, the Government have indicated that they will implement all the recommendations, to which the noble Lord referred. It is perhaps worth restating the sources of terrorist threats. As the noble Lord noted, about 67% of attacks since 2018 have been Islamist, which represents three-quarters of the MI5 caseload and about 64% of those who are currently in custody. However, 22% of attacks since 2018 have been by extreme right-wing terrorist organisations. They represent about a quarter of the MI5 caseload and about 28% of those in custody for terrorism-related offences.
As regards whether Prevent is in some way ineffective, and perhaps stigmatises certain communities, we should also look at the success here. The Channel cases to which my noble friend referred just now, and which I also mentioned, represent 13% of referrals, and of those, 89% of the individuals exited with no further radicalisation concerns. I think we should be reasonably reassured that Prevent works.
Lord Walney (CB)
Further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the commentary around the revised Contest strategy makes clear that the Government believe that the proportion of referrals to Channel from those at risk of Islamist radicalisation is artificially low. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case? What is the plan to address that issue?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I fear I cannot confirm whether that is the case. I will find out the answer and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in the other place, my right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael MP asked the Home Secretary about children who are UK citizens who were trafficked by ISIS and who are still in northern Syria, while our allies have repatriated their citizens in similar circumstances. The Home Secretary’s response had no bearing on the question, so can the Minister say whether there is anything in the strategy to tackle these very difficult cases, and what action the Government intend to take about them if not?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am not familiar with the cases to which the noble Lord’s right honourable friend in the other place referred, how many there are or what is the substance of this particular inquiry. I suggest that it is a long way from the Contest strategy that we are here to talk about, but I will endeavour to find out a little more and come back to him, rather than giving him an inadequate answer.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, a few years ago, I did some work with some anti-radicalisation programmes that looked at taking children who are young—often surprisingly young; quite often it is at the beginning of puberty when children are more vulnerable to being recruited, rather than as older teenagers—and using sport or other activities to convince them not to be radicalised and not to travel to Turkey or to Syria. One good thing about those projects is that they were run by psychologists who understood young children and people likely to be radicalised, but also by people from the Muslim community. Victims of terrorism are often Muslims themselves. Is my noble friend aware of what the Home Office and the Government generally are doing to work with local community projects that are stopping young people being radicalised?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. I am not aware of those particular programmes, but they seem to me to make perfect sense. I commend him for his efforts and those of the wider community to which he refers.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their latest iteration of the Contest strategy, which could justly be described as world-leading. However, terrorist attacks on small venues, such as cafes and village churches, have, happily, barely featured over the last quarter of a century. Is the Minister satisfied that the proposed new statutory duties on those responsible for many hundreds of thousands of such premises to complete terrorism evaluations and to provide terrorism protection training to each worker, on pain of enforcement proceedings by a regulator, are in all respects proportionate?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord is right to raise this subject. The Government carefully considered the impact on premises and events that may be captured by the forthcoming Bill. It includes ensuring the requirements are proportionate while achieving better public security and without placing undue burden on responsible persons. Obviously, pre-legislative scrutiny will help ensure that we create a strong Bill that is proportionate and not cumbersome or costly for smaller venues. I should like to quote the evidence of Matt Jukes of the Metropolitan Police to the Home Affairs Select Committee in June. He said:
“Having measures in place that ensure that new staff have been briefed and have undertaken very proportionate, 45-minute or so training online, in the same way as they will consider the fire safety plan or food hygiene, feels to me to be proper”.
That would seem to me to make sense.
Advanced Artificial Intelligence
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ravensdale
That this House takes note of the ongoing development of advanced artificial intelligence, associated risks and potential approaches to regulation within the UK and internationally.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I first declare my interest as a project director working for Atkins and by noting that this is not just my debate: a number of noble Lords right across the Cross Benches put forward submissions on this topic, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
There are a couple of reasons why I was keen to put this forward. First, as we have seen recently, the rapid advancement of AI has been brought into sharp relief by the ongoing development of large language models, some of which are likely to be able to pass the famous Turing test for machine intelligence, which has been something of a benchmark for it over the past 50 years. The questions of existential risk of that technology have also resurfaced. AI is the most important technology of our generation. It will cause significant upheaval right across the economy, good and bad. We in Parliament need to be thinking about this area and talking about it a lot more than we are. It should be right at the top of our agenda. Secondly, there is the matter of timing. The Government released their White Paper earlier this year but, in some respects, this has been overtaken by events and the Government appear to be rethinking aspects of their strategy. Therefore, this is the perfect time for this House to express its views on the issues before us, to help inform forthcoming government responses.
In my work as an engineering consultant, I have worked on and seen the continued advancement of these technologies over the years. Several years ago, one of my projects involved the transfer of large amounts of engineering data—the complete design definition of a nuclear reactor, hundreds of thousands of documents —from an old to a new computer system. A proposal was developed to get eight graduate engineers sitting at desks and manually transferring the data, which would have been a terrible waste of talent. We sat down with our brightest young engineers, and they investigated and developed a smart algorithm which worked in the graphical user interface, just as a human would. It was effectively a software robot to undertake this work and replace human workers. This was able to crunch through the entire task in minimal time—a matter of months—saving hundreds of thousands of pounds and thousands of hours of engineering effort.
Across the industry, we are starting to see automation coupled with AI and machine learning to learn how to resolve discrepancies and data from past experience, continuing that process of freeing up humans in clerical jobs for more value-added work. This is one example of the huge benefits that the AI revolution is having and will continue to have on society. Anyone who has read Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations and his description of the pin factory sees the logic and economic benefits of increasing specialisation—but also the drudgery of work that can result from that. Among many other benefits, AI will continue that process of freeing people up from repetitive, inane tasks and on to more value-added work, increasing human happiness along with it.
However, then we have the flip side, the concerns around risks, all the way up to existential risks. We live in a radically uncertain world, a terminology coined by the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, and John Kay. There has been much hyperbole around AI risk in recent months, but we need to take those risks seriously. Just as Martin Weitzman put forward his very elegant argument around the rationale for investing large amounts of money today on climate change, based on the tail risks of worst-case scenarios, so too we should consider the tail risks of where massive increases in digital compute and the potential emergence of a superintelligence —something that far exceeds human intellectual capabilities in every area—will take us, and invest appropriately based on that.
There are no historical parallels for the technological singularity that AI could unleash. Perhaps one instructive episode would be the fate of the Aztec civilisation. The Aztecs had existed in the world as they knew it for many thousands of years, with no significant change from one year to the next. Then one day in 1519, the white sails of the fleet of Cortés appeared on the horizon, and nothing was ever the same again. Within months, Cortés and his few hundred men had conquered the vast Aztec empire, with its population of millions, one of the most remarkable and tragic feats in human history. To avoid perhaps one day in the coming decades seeing a version of the white sails of Cortés on our own horizon, we must carefully consider our approaches now to this rapidly developing technology and manage the risks. That means regulation. It just will not do to let the private sector get on with it and hope for the best.
What should this mean for regulation and legislation development? The key point for me is that the Government cannot effectively regulate something that they do not adequately understand. I may be wrong, but I do not think that the Government, or any noble Lord here today, will have a fully thought-through plan of action for the regulation of AI. We are in a highly unpredictable situation. To this end, the first thing that we need to think about is how we can implement a sovereign research capability in AI which will develop regulation in parallel.
Research and regulation are different sides of the same coin in this instance. We need to learn by doing, we need agencies that can attract top-class people and we need new models of governance that enable the agility and flexibility that will be required for public investment into AI research and regulation. Any attempt to fold this effort into a government department or a traditional public research organisation is simply not going to work.
So how should we go about this? It was a great privilege a few years back to help shape the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act, and I am very pleased to see ARIA moving forward at this albeit early stage. There are a number of things we can draw from it regarding how we approach AI capability. AI capability is exactly the sort of high-risk, high-reward technology we would expect ARIA to be investing in. But if we agree that AI needs a research focus, we could perhaps set up a different organisation in the same way as ARIA, but with a specific focus on AI, and call it ARIA-AI; or we could even increase funding and provide that focus to an existing part of ARIA’s organisational set-up.
In Committee on the ARIA Bill, we debated extensively the potential to give ARIA a focus or aim similar to that of the United States’ Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, and ARPA-E. The Government wanted ARIA to maintain the freedom to choose its own goals, but there is an opportunity now to look at this again and use the strengths of the ARIA concept—its set-up, governance structures and freedom of action—to help the UK move forward in this area.
This is similar in some respects to the “national laboratory” for AI proposed by Tony Blair and the noble Lord, Lord Hague, in their recent report. This research organisation, along with the AI task force, if set up in the right way, would advance research alongside regulation, enable a unique competitive advantage for the UK in this area and begin the process of solving AI safety problems.
This will all need to be backed up by the right levels of government support. This is one of those areas where we should fully commit as a nation to this effort, or not press on with it at all. I can think of a number of such examples. The Government’s aspiration to build up to exascale levels of computing by 2026 is very welcome but would give the entire British state the ability to train only one GPT-4 scale model four years after OpenAl did. In addition, before DeepMind was acquired by Google, it had an annual budget of approximately £l billion a year, which gives a view of the scale of investment required. Can the Minister in summing up say what plans there are to scale up the Government’s ambitions in this area?
Finally, the Government’s recent White Paper outlines a pretty sensible approach in balancing management of the risks and opportunities of the technology, but as I said at the start, there are areas where it has perhaps been overtaken by events, in a field that is moving at breakneck speed—and that speed is the problem here. Unlike climate change, the full effects of which will not manifest over decades, or even centuries, AI is developing at an incredible pace. We therefore need to start thinking immediately about the initial regulatory frameworks. The Government could consider as a minimum putting their five principles in the White Paper on a statutory footing in the near term to provide regulators with enhanced powers to address the risks of AI.
Here is the bones of an AI Bill, perhaps legislating to set up a new research organisation, providing regulators with the right initial powers and the funding to sit behind all of this, which would at the same time build upon the world-leading AI development capabilities we now have in the UK. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on securing this debate and on the comprehensive and interesting way he has introduced it. I signed up to speak for two reasons: first, because I thought I might learn something; and secondly, because I thought it would be helpful for me to highlight that the Communications and Digital Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, which I have the great privilege to chair, has recently launched an inquiry into large language models, focusing on how we can capitalise on the opportunities while managing the risks.
I am under no illusion: the latest advances in generative AI are significant, but we must not allow scaremongering about the future to be a distraction from today’s opportunities and risks. In the committee’s view, what is most important at the moment is to separate hype from reality and make a considered assessment of what guardrails and controls are needed now.
When we come back in September, we will take a detailed look at how large language models are expected to develop over the next three years, how well those changes are accounted for by the Government’s White Paper and our existing regulators, and what needs to happen to capitalise on the benefits and address the most pressing risks. That will include close examination of the structure, work and capacity of the regulators and government teams and their ability to deliver on the White Paper’s expectations. We are open for written submissions and are currently inviting witnesses. We intend to hear from a wide range of key players—from the big tech platforms and fast-moving start-ups to academics, industry experts, regulators, government advisers and institutions abroad.
A key part of our work will be to demystify some of the issues and make sure we are not blinded by the rosy outlook that tech firms are proposing or by doom-saying about the imminent collapse of civilisation. I do not know about noble Lords, but I cannot help thinking how convenient it is to the big tech bros that so few people understand what is going on, so we are going to try to change that through our inquiry. This is not just to mitigate anything bad happening that we do not know about, but to make sure that all the power is not concentrated in a few people’s hands and that the many exciting, potential opportunities of this technology are available not only to them.
Some industries are already seriously concerned, and with good reason. Those in the creative sector, particularly news publishers, are worried about intellectual property. The Minister covers IP policy as well as AI and will be aware just how important this issue is. I would be grateful if he updated us on the Intellectual Property Office working group, which is developing government policy so that news organisations, publishers, writers, artists, musicians and everyone else whose creations are being used by the tech firms to develop LLMs can be properly compensated, and commercial terms established that are fair to all.
Content creators are already seeing their work being used to train generative AI models. If studio businesses can get movie scripts, images or computer-generated background artists for free, why would they pay? The strikes in Hollywood are probably just the beginning of the disruption. In my committee’s creative industries report in January, we predicted looming disruption in the sector and called on DCMS to pay more attention. Sadly, we were right, although changes have come much faster than expected.
At the same time, we cannot wish these technologies away, and nor should we—they present massive opportunities too. We may now be at a critical juncture, both in securing UK competitive advantage in the AI race, and in preventing the risk of overmighty tech firms releasing technologies they cannot control. We need to get this right, and fast. I hope my committee’s work will play a role in shaping this debate and informing government policy.
I look forward to hearing much more on AI regulation in the coming months, and I hope the Minister and his colleagues will respond enthusiastically when we invite them to give evidence to our committee.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a distinct pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. I associate myself with her words of commendation and congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale; it is entirely appropriate that this debate be led by someone with the lived experience of an engineer, and in the noble Lord we have found that person.
Mindful of time, I will limit myself to asking a few diagnostic questions with which I hope the Minister will engage. I believe that they raise issues which are essential to harnessing the benefits of AI, if it is to be done in a manner which is both sustainable and enjoys public consent and trust. Using the incremental process of legislation to govern a technology characterised by chronic exponential technological leaps is not easy. Though tempting, the answer is not to oscillate between the poles of a false dichotomy, with regulatory rigour on one side and innovation on the other. Like climate change, AI is a potentially existential risk that is chartered by ever deepening scientific understanding, emerging opportunity and emerging demonstrable risks.
It is not always true that an absence of government means liberation for business or innovation, especially when business and innovation know that more comprehensive regulation is on the horizon. Clear signals from the Government of regulation, even in advance of that legislation, will not inhibit the AI sector but give it greater confidence in planning, resourcing and pursuing technological advances. My first question is: given that the Prime Minister last month announced his intention for the UK to play a role in leading the world in AI regulation, how does he plan to shape an international legal framework when our own is still largely hypothetical? When do the Government plan to devote parliamentary time to bringing forward some instrument or statement which will deal squarely with the future direction of domestic AI regulation? The President of the United States seems to be doing this these days to ensure, in his own words, that
“innovation doesn’t come at the expense of Americans’ rights and safety”.
I am mindful too of machinery of government issues. Like climate change, AI cuts across apparently discrete areas and will have consequences for all areas of government policy-making. Of course, as a member of the AI in Weapons Systems Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, I am conscious that the ethical implications of AI for national defence are sparking great concern. But, as the Government’s White Paper made clear, we envisage a role for AI in everything, from health and energy policy to law enforcement and intelligence gathering. It is therefore imperative that the Government establish clear lines of accountability within Whitehall so that these intersections between discrete areas of policy-making are monitored and only appropriate innovation is encouraged.
Briefings we all received in anticipation of this debate highlight growing concern over the lack of transparency and accountability about the existing use of AI in areas such as policing and justice, with particular emphasis on pursuing alleged benefit fraud. The Dutch example should be a lesson to us all.
I should be grateful if the Minister would describe how the current formal structures interact, as well as the degree to which No. 10 provides a central co-ordinating role. As the AI Council recedes from view and as the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation’s newly appointed executive director and apparently refreshed board get to grips with how to support the delivery of priorities set out in the Government’s National Data Strategy, my second question to the Minister is whether is he feels that the recommendation in the recent joint Blair-Hague report should be under active consideration—especially having the Foundation Model Taskforce report directly to the Prime Minister. That may be a useful step to achieving better co-ordination on AI across government. If not, why not?
In preparing for today, I had the pleasure of tracking the Government’s publications on this issue for the past three years or so. In each of those, they quite rightly emphasise the importance of public trust and consent. From my experience as a member of the AI in Weapons Systems Select Committee, I note that in the first section of the executive summary of the Defence Artificial Intelligence Strategy, the Government’s vision is to be “the world’s most … trusted” organisation for AI in defence. An essential element of that trust, we are told, is that the use of AI-enabled weapons systems will be restricted to the extent of the tolerance of the UK public. The maintenance of public trust and support will be a constant qualification of the principles that will inform the use of AI-enabled systems. As there has never been any public consultation on the defence AI strategy, how will the Government on our behalf determine the limits of the tolerance of the public? My own research has revealed that this is a very difficult thing to measure if it is not informed tolerance or opinion. The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation’s polling corroborates that. What steps are the Government taking to educate the public so they can have an informed base to decide their individual or collective tolerance or level or trust in the use of AI for any purpose, never mind defence?
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, it is a distinct pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and to join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Ravensdale on the very thoughtful way in which he introduced this important debate. I declare my interests as chairman of King’s Health Partners, chairman of the King’s Fund and chairman of the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research.
There are few areas in national life, the conduct of government and the delivery of public services that will become as dependent on artificial intelligence as that of healthcare. It is that particular area to which I will confine my remarks. We all recognise that there are increasing demands on the delivery of healthcare services through a changing population demographic, a subsequent increased demand on clinical services and a substantial workforce shortage. Of course, with all that increasing demand, there will be the need either for the economy to grow at a substantial rate to be able to provide funding for those services or for us to adopt innovation to deliver those services. One of the important innovations is of course the application of artificial intelligence. We have seen that already in healthcare in the areas of diagnostics, imaging and pathology. It is helping us to deliver high-throughput analysis of scans of pathological samples, and, through the application of algorithms, it is helping us to determine better the risk of poor outcomes in patients, to improve diagnosis and therefore to improve the efficiency of our service.
However, there are also substantial challenges. The development of artificial intelligence modalities requires access to high-quality data, and in healthcare we know that data are fragmented across the system through the use of different methods for the collection and creation of them. As a result, unless we have a single approach to the collection of data, we run a substantial risk that the data used to develop and to train AI systems will be inaccurate, and, as a consequence, inaccuracy will be translated into the provision of clinical services. That will potentially drive discrimination in those services, whereby the data on underrepresented populations are not sufficiently incorporated into the development of such technologies and tools.
Successive Governments have had great difficulty in establishing the social licence that will allow for the broad collection and use of those data to drive research, technology and innovation opportunities in healthcare. The whole data area will be one of the most important regulatory challenges in the safe and effective development of AI technologies in healthcare. Does the Minister believe that His Majesty’s Government are at a place now where they can secure access to those data to drive these important opportunities? If not, how will they drive the data revolution in such a way that the public, more generally, are confident that those data will be used broadly for this purpose and other research and development purposes?
The MHRA in 2020 defined the regulatory pathway for the adoption of AI technologies as one very much mirroring those for medical devices. Clearly, some years have passed since that important approach to the regulation of AI was first established. The rigour with which the development of devices, or the regulatory supervision of the development of devices, is applied is slightly different to that for other therapeutic innovations. Is the Minister content that, in pursuing a pathway of regulatory development that is based on the device pathway—which is predominantly risk-based; that is reasonable—and looks at the safety and performance of these applications, there will be sufficient regulatory rigour to provide public confidence?
Regulatory elements of that pathway must not only include an understanding of the source of the data used to develop these technologies but provide a requirement for transparency in terms of an appropriate understanding of what forms the basis of the AI application. That is so that there can be a proper clinical understanding of the appropriateness of that application and of how it can be applied in the broader context of what must be understood about patients and their broader circumstances to reach an appropriate clinical decision.
Beyond that, there are also substantial concerns about ethical considerations in terms of both data privacy and the questions asked to train a clinical application being properly grounded in the modern ethics of healthcare delivery. Is the Minister content that the current regulatory pathway is sufficient and what steps are proposed by His Majesty’s Government to continue to develop these regulatory pathways so that they keep pace with the important advances and therefore benefits that will be derived from AI in healthcare?
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
It is pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for scheduling this most timely debate. I draw attention to my relevant interests in the register, specifically my advisory roles with various tech companies—notably Tadaweb, Whitespace and Thales—and my membership of the House of Lords AI in Weapon Systems Committee.
It is as a result of my membership of that committee that I am prompted to speak, but I emphasise that the committee, although it has collected a huge amount of evidence, is still some way off reaching its final conclusions and recommendations. So today I speak from a purely personal and military perspective, not as a representative of the committee’s considered views. I want to make a few broad points in the context of the regulation of artificial intelligence in weapon systems.
First, it is clear to me at least, from the wide range of specialist evidence given to our committee, that much of that evidence is conflicted, lacks consensus or is short of factual support. This is especially true of the technology, the capability of which is mostly concerned with future risk rather than current reality. Secondly, it is reasonably clear that, although there is no perfect equilibrium, there are as many benefits to modern warfare from artificial intelligence as there are risks. I think of such things as greater precision, less collateral damage, speed of action, fewer human casualties, less human frailty and a greater deterrent effect—but this is not to deny that there are significant risks. My third general point is that to deny ourselves the potential benefit of AI for national military advantage in Armed Forces increasingly lacking scale would surely not be appropriate. It will most certainly not be the course of action that our enemies will pursue, though they may well impel us to do so through devious means.
My own view, therefore, is that the sensible policy approach to the future development of AI in weapon systems is to proceed but to do so with caution, the challenge being how to satisfactorily mitigate the risks. To some extent, the answer is regulation. The form that might take is up for further debate and refinement but, from my perspective, it should embrace at least three main categories.
The first would be the continued pursuit of international agreement or enhancements to international law or treaty obligations to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in lethal weapon systems. The second would be a refined regulatory framework which controlled the research, development, trials, testing and, ultimately—when passed—the authorisation of AI-assisted weapon systems prior to operational employment. This could be part of a national framework initiative.
As an aside, I think I can say without fear of contradiction that no military commander—certainly no British one—would wish to have the responsibility for a fielded weapon system that made autonomous judgments through artificial intelligence, the technology and reliability of which was beyond human control or comprehension.
The third area of regulation is on the battlefield itself. This is not to bureaucratise the battlefield. I think I have just about managed to convince a number of my fellow committee members that the use of lethal force on operations is already a highly regulated affair. But there would need to be specific enhancements to the interplay between levels of autonomy and the retention of meaningful human control. This is needed both to retain human accountability and to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law. This will involve a quite sophisticated training burden, but none of this is insurmountable.
I want to finish with two general points of concern. There are two dangerous and interlinked dynamics regarding artificial intelligence and the nature of future warfare. Together, they need us to reimagine the way future warfare may be, and arguably already is being, conducted. Future warfare may not be defined by the outcome of military engagement in set-piece battles that test the relative military quality of weapons, humans and tactics. The desirability of risking the unpredictability of crossing the threshold of formalised warfare may cause many people, including political leaders, to think of alternate means of gaining international competitive advantage.
The true dangers of artificial intelligence, in a reimagined form of warfare that is below the threshold of formalised war, lie in its ability to exploit social media and the internet of things to radicalise, fake, misinform, disrupt national life, create new dependencies and, ultimately, create alternate truths and destroy the democratic process. By comparison with the task of regulating this reimagined form of warfare, the regulation of autonomous weapon systems is relatively straightforward.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of two recent select and scrutiny committees on AI, and as a founding board member of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation.
Together with others, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton.
We are at a pivotal moment in the development of AI. As others have said, there is immense potential for good and immense potential for harm in the new technologies. The question before us is not primarily one of assessing risk and developing regulation. Risk and regulation must both rest on the foundation of ethics. My fundamental question is: what is the Government’s view on the place of ethics within these debates, and the place of the humanities and civil society in the development and translation of ethics?
In 1979, Pope John Paul II published the first public document of his papacy, the encyclical Redemptor Hominis. He drew attention to humanity’s growing fear of what humanity itself produces—a fear revealed in much recent coverage of AI. Humanity is rightly afraid that technology can become the means and instrument for self-destruction and harm, compared with which all the cataclysms and catastrophes of history known to us seem to fade away. Pope John Paul II goes on to argue that the development of technology demands a proportional development of morals and ethics. He argues that this last development seems, unfortunately, to be always left behind.
Professor Shoshana Zuboff made a similar point on this time lag more recently, in her book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. She wrote:
“We have yet to invent the politics and new forms of collaborative action … that effectively assert the people’s right to a human future”.
These new structures must be developed not by engineers alone but in rich dialogue across society. Society together must ask the big ethical questions. Will these new technologies lead us into a more deeply humane future and towards greater equality, dignity of the person and the creative flourishing of all? Or will they lead us instead to a future of human enslavement to algorithms, unchallenged bias, still greater inequalities, concentration of wealth and power, less fulfilling work and a passive consumerism?
Five years ago the Government established the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation to explore these questions. The centre began well but was never established on an independent legal footing and seems to have slipped ever further from the centre of the Government’s thinking and reflection. One of the hopes of the CDEI was that it would provide an authoritative overview of sector-led innovation, have a co-ordinating and oversight role, and be a place for bringing together public engagement, civil society, good governance and technology. I therefore ask the Minister: what are the Government’s plans for the CDEI in the current landscape? What are the plans for the engagement of civil society with AI regulation and ethics, including with the international conference planned for the autumn? Will the Government underline their commitment to the precautionary principle as a counterweight to the unrestrained development of technology, because of the risks of harm? Will we mind the widening gap between technology and ethics for the sake of human flourishing into the future?
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. I declare my interest as a member of the AI in Weapon Systems Committee. I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for choosing for debate a subject that arguably now trumps all others in the world in importance. I also owe a debt of gratitude to a brilliant young AI researcher at Cambridge who is researching AI risk and impacts.
I could, but do not have the time to, discuss the enormous benefits that AI may bring and some of the well-known risks: possible extreme concentration of power; mass surveillance; disinformation and manipulation, for example of elections; and the military misuse of AI—to say nothing of the possible loss, as estimated by Goldman Sachs, of 300 million jobs globally to AI. Rather, in my five minutes I will focus on the existential risks that may flow from humans creating an entity that is more intelligent than we are. Five minutes is not long to discuss the possible extinction of humanity, but I will do my best.
Forty years ago, if you said some of the things I am about to say, you were called a fruitcake and a Luddite, but no longer. What has changed in that time? The changes result mainly from the enormous development in the last 10 years of machine learning and its very broad applicability—for example, distinguishing images and audio, learning patterns in language, and simulating the folding of proteins—as long as you have the enormous financial resources necessary to do it.
Where is all this going? Richard Ngo, a researcher at OpenAI and previously at DeepMind, has publicly said that there is a 50:50 chance that by 2025 neural nets will, among other things, be able to understand that they are machines and how their actions interface with the world, and to autonomously design, code and distribute all but the most complex apps. Of course, the world knows all about ChatGPT.
At the extreme, artificial systems could solve strategic-level problems better than human institutions, disempower humanity and lead to catastrophic loss of life and value. Godfathers of AI, such as Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, now predict that such things may become possible within the next five to 20 years. Despite two decades of concentrated effort, there has been no significant progress on, nor consensus among AI researchers about, credible proposals on the problems of alignment and control. This led many senior AI academics—including some prominent Chinese ones, I emphasise—as well as the leaderships of Microsoft, Google, OpenAI, DeepMind and Anthropic, among others, recently to sign a short public statement, hosted by the Center for AI Safety:
“Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war”.
In other words, they are shouting “Fire!” and the escape window may be closing fast.
As a result, many Governments and international institutions, such as the UN and the EU, are suddenly waking up to the threats posed by advanced AI. The Government here are to host a global AI safety summit this autumn, apparently, but Governments, as some have said, are starting miles behind the start line. It will be critical for that summit to get the right people in the room and in particular not to allow the tech giants to regulate themselves. As Nick Bostrom wrote:
“The best path towards the development of beneficial superintelligence is one where AI developers and AI safety researchers are on the same side”.
What might the shape of AI regulation look like? Among other things, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said, Governments need to significantly increase the information they have about the technological frontiers. The public interest far outweighs commercial secrecy. This challenge is international and global; AI, like a pandemic, knows no boundaries.
Regulation should document the well-known and anticipated harms of societal-scale AI and incentivise developers to address these harms. Best practice for the trustworthy development of advanced AI systems should include regular risk assessments, red teaming, third-party audits, mandatory public consultation, post-deployment monitoring, incident reporting and redress.
There are those who say that this is all unwarranted scaremongering, as some have touched on this afternoon, and that “there is nothing to see here”. But that is not convincing because those people—and they know who they are—are transparently just talking their own commercial and corporate book. I also pray in aid the following well-known question: would you board an aeroplane if the engineers who designed it said it had a 5% chance of crashing? Some, such as Eliezer Yudkowsky, say that we are already too late and that, as with Oppenheimer, the genie is already out of the bottle; all humanity can do is to die with dignity in the face of superhuman AI.
Nevertheless, there are some very recent possible causes for hope, such as the just-announced White House voluntary commitments by the large tech companies and the Prime Minister’s appointment of Ian Hogarth as the chair of the UK Government’s AI Foundation Model Taskforce.
For the sake of humanity, I end with the words of Dylan Thomas:
“Do not go gentle into that good night …
Rage, rage against the dying of the light”.
Given that we are starting miles behind the start line, I refer to Churchill’s well-known exhortation: “Action this day”.
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, let me join the queue in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on his stellar career to date and his excellent speech. He will bring an enormous amount to your Lordships’ House, especially his depth of knowledge in the area we are discussing.
ChatGPT and other forms of generative AI have taken the world by storm. I am a social scientist, but I have spent several years studying AI and we have never seen anything like this: every day around the world, the media has stories about the evolution of AI. This is a quite extraordinary phenomenon.
As we all know, the regulatory problems are huge, and Governments everywhere are scrambling to keep up. Extremely distinguished scientific figures, such as Geoffrey Hinton, just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, have declared generative AI to be an existential threat to humanity. I do not wholly agree with this; it is awesome that human consciousness might be replicated and even improved on, in some sense, but the whole structure of science depends on social institutions. We cannot simply replace that by machines. I think there is a progressive merging of human beings and intelligent machines, and I do not see much of a way back.
In the meantime, a host of other organisations such as schools and universities, where I work, is struggling to cope with much more mundane problems such as how to ensure that students are actually the authors of the academic work they produce. That does not sound like much, but it is a big issue on the ground.
From its earliest origins, AI has been linked to geopolitics and war. It was created not by Silicon Valley but by ARPA and DARPA, the huge research programmes set up by the US Government in response to Russia’s Sputnik 2, which carried Yuri Gagarin into space. Regulatory efforts today, as in previous eras, are likely to be dislocated on a global level by current geopolitical tensions, especially those involving Russia, China and the West.
The most extensive plan for regulation that I have seen is that developed by the EU. As with our Government’s programme, its aim is to balance opportunity and risk, although there are lots of huge issues still unresolved in all this. I support that ambition but it will be very difficult to achieve, given that the pace and scope of innovation has accelerated off the wall. This time, much of it is driven by digital start-ups rather than the huge digital corporations, and it is genuinely global.
Is there anyone in the Chamber who does not have their smartphone close at hand? Even I have mine in my pocket, although I sort of hate it. The smartphone in your pocket has much more intelligence than many machines that we have created, including those that took human beings to the moon. This is quite extraordinary stuff.
As was announced only about two days ago in the US, ChatGPT will become available to smartphone users across the world. Imagine the impact of that, given that the proportion of the world’s population with access to a smartphone has risen to 84%. It will be absolutely awesome. I make a strong plea to the Government Front Bench to have a far more extensive debate about these issues, because they are so fundamental to a whole range of political, social and economic problems that we face.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, machine learning models, most famously AlphaFold, have a well-known role in the discovery of useful drugs. Drugs need to be safe, so open-source toxicity datasets are used to screen new molecules and discard those which are predicted to be toxic—a justly celebrated benefit of artificial intelligence.
On a darker note, suppose that a bad actor wishes to create a new nerve agent. They could take an open-source generative model and set it to work with the same toxicity dataset but with the instruction to seek out, rather than avoid, molecular structures predicted to be toxic. There will be false positives and the molecule, once identified, would still have to be synthesised, but it is now feasible to find multiple previously unknown chemical warfare agents with little more than a computer and an internet connection—as shown in a recent paper published after some agonising, and as footnoted in last month’s thought-provoking Blair/Hague report.
Crimes, as well as threats to national security, can be facilitated by AI techniques. Take high-value spear phishing, historically a labour-intensive enterprise. The diffusion of efficient and scalable AI systems will allow more actors to carry out such attacks, at a higher rate and volume, on targets who can be researched by data extraction attacks or scraping social media and can be more cunningly deceived with the help of speech synthesis systems and fake images. Similar disinformation techniques will no doubt be used by others to diminish our capacity to know what is real, and thus to threaten our democracy.
Democracy is not a suicide pact; accordingly, those who protect us from serious crime and threats to our security must themselves be able to use AI, subject to legal constraints founded on civil liberties and set by Parliament. My independent review of the Investigatory Powers Act, concentrating particularly on the work of the UK’s intelligence community, UKIC, was presented to the Prime Minister in April and quietly published last month. As part of this most timely debate, which I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ravensdale on securing, I will summarise three of its conclusions.
First, as one would hope, UKIC makes use of AI. It underlies existing capabilities such as cyber defence against malicious actors and the child abuse image database. UKIC has for many years employed machine learning automation techniques such as image-to-text conversion, language translation, audio processing and the use of classifiers to pick information of interest out of huge datasets. Models can be trained on labelled content to detect imagery of national security concern, such as weapons, allowing the work of human analysts to be focused on the most promising images. Other techniques of significant potential value include speech to text and speaker identification.
Secondly, UKIC itself, and those entrusted with its oversight, are alert to the ethical dilemmas. IPCO’s Technology Advisory Panel—a body recommended in my bulk powers review of 2016 and ably led by the computer scientist Professor Dame Muffy Calder—is there to guide the senior judicial commissioners who, quite rightly, have the final say on the issue of warrants. The CETaS research report published in May, Privacy Intrusion and National Security in the Age of AI, sets out the factors that could determine the intrusiveness of automated analytic methods. Over the coming years, the focus on how bulk data is acquired and retained may further evolve, under the influence of bulk analytics and AI, towards a focus on how it is used. Perhaps the Information Commissioner’s Office, which already oversees the NCA’s use of bulk datasets, will have a role.
Thirdly, in a world where everybody is using open-source datasets to train large language models, UKIC is uniquely constrained by Part 7 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. I found that these constraints—designed with different uses in mind, and comparable to the safeguards on far more intrusive powers such as the bulk interception of communications—impinge in certain important contexts on UKIC’s agility, on its co-operation with commercial partners, on its ability to recruit and retain data scientists, and, ultimately, on its effectiveness. My conclusion was that a lighter-touch regime should be applied, with the consent of a judicial commissioner, to certain categories of dataset in respect of which there is a low or no expectation of privacy. That would require a Bill to amend the IPA. I do not always welcome Home Office Bills, but I hope this one will come sooner rather than later.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I spoke in the “AI in the UK” debate just over a year ago, on 25 May. At that time, I was the president of the CBI, which I stepped down from in June last year after completing my two-year term. I quoted Susannah Odell, the CBI’s head of digital policy at the time, who said:
“This AI strategy is a crucial step in keeping the UK a leader in emerging technologies and driving business investment across the economy. From trade to climate, AI brings unprecedented opportunities for increased growth and productivity. It’s also positive to see the government joining up the innovation landscape to make it more than the sum of its parts … With AI increasingly being incorporated into our workplaces and daily lives, it’s essential to build public trust in the technology. Proportionate and joined-up regulation will be a core element to this and firms look forward to engaging with the government’s continued work in this area. Businesses hope to see the AI strategy provide the long-term direction and fuel to reach the government’s AI ambitions”.
At that time, I made the same point I have made many times: if we are to achieve this ambition, I do not think we can do it by investing 1.7% of GDP in research, development and innovation compared with the 3.1% and 3.2% that America and Germany do. We need to increase our investment in R&D and innovation by at least 1% of GDP. Does the Minister agree?
Since the mid-1990s—in less than three decades—we have had the internet, dotcom, blockchain, and now we have AI; by the way, hand in hand with AI, quantum is the next big leap. AI is developing at a rapid pace and, since we debated it just over a year ago, there is much more on the agenda, from generative language models such as ChatGPT, to medical screening technology. It is computer vision; it is speech to text and natural language understanding; it is robotics; it is machine learning; I could go on with the amazing capabilities.
The UK Government, in their National AI Strategy, say that AI is the
“fastest growing deep technology in the world, with huge potential to rewrite the rules of entire industries, drive substantial economic growth and transform all areas of life”.
Such transformative technology brings both risks and benefits, which we are discussing in this debate.
A point that has not been brought up is that 96% of companies involved in AI are SMEs. Around 75% of those are based in London and the south-east, and the headings are technology, healthcare and science, professional services and financial services. Although 96% of them are SMEs, £7.6 billion in revenue—well over half—is from the large companies. That is, of course, not surprising at all.
If I had the time, I could list all the benefits of AI, from safer cars and transport systems to benefits for businesses and public services, to democracy being made stronger and to crime prevention and defence, as we have heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton. I could list the risks, including a lack of transparency, bias and discrimination, privacy and ethical concerns, security risks, concentration of power, dependence on AI, job displacement, economic inequality, legal and regulatory challenges, an AI arms race, loss of human connection, misinformation and manipulation, and unintended consequences. As the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale mentioned—I thank him for leading this debate—the existential risk is frightening, to say the least. PWC has said that 7% of jobs in the UK were at high risk of being displaced, but the overall conclusion is that, broadly, it should be neutral. Would the Government reassure us that that will be the case?
There is a call for rapid regulatory adaptation. Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google, has warned about the potential harms of AI and called for a “suitable regulatory framework”. BCS has issued a report outlining how AI can be helped to “grow up” responsibly. The Russell group of universities—I am chancellor of the University of Birmingham—has said that AI should be used for the
“benefit of staff and students—enhancing teaching practices”,
and that we should not be frightened of it.
I am proud to announce that the University of Birmingham, along with IIT Madras, one of the leading Indian educational institutions, has just announced a joint master’s degree in AI and data science, conducted on both campuses, with the students coming out with a joint degree. This is a first. The report of Sir Tony Blair and the noble Lord, Lord Hague, has been referred to: A New National Purpose: AI Promises a World-Leading Future of Britain.
Collaboration is absolutely crucial, but no one has mentioned this. Can the Minister assure us that the Horizon programme, which is sitting on the Prime Minister’s desk, is going to be activated? The sooner that is done and the sooner we have collaborative research, the more it will help AI to accelerate.
I turn to public trust. AI will be undermined unless the public are informed. What are the Government’s plans to educate the public on AI?
My final point is on labour shortages. We need to activate the labour shortage occupation list to enable us to have access to the talent to actually make the UK a world leader in AI. Will the Government do that?
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on securing this debate. Frankly, the breadth of the contributions thus far shows the urgent need for Parliament to be actively involved and to make sure that those technologies are held accountable. Of course, the big question is how.
In the short time available today I want to touch on another impact of AI: the impact of AI in the workplace and its potential implications for the future of work. I am grateful to Mary Towers of the TUC for the very helpful information she has provided about workplace experience, and I can give only a few of those examples today. The TUC has produced a manifesto, Dignity at Work and the AI Revolution, laying out the values that we should adopt to make sure that technology at work is for the benefit of everyone, and that we should continue to assert the importance of human agency in the face of technological control.
Amid much of the hype and worry about a data-driven transformation of our world, there is, frankly, something missing: the experience of those who are already having their lives changed. Their experience helps us to understand AI and the change it brings to our lives, affecting every relationship and interaction we have, in the workplace, in our families, as consumers and as citizens. Our lives are enmeshed in—and some say dominated by—data. Data is constantly collected about who we are, what we do and the environment in which we live and work.
Forty years ago, academics, medical experts, researchers and civil society came together on a major advance in medical ethics. The challenge they had at that time was embryology and the question of how to bring together science and what our communities believed was acceptable without at the same time stifling the technology and making it unable to deliver the very best of its opportunities. I am not saying that we can do exactly the same now, but it is about bringing together the ethics to underpin the work that is being done. Any noble Lord contributing to this debate must surely be worried that, by the time they sit down, the whole area will have advanced yet again.
The intersection of technology and work has often been a source of conflict and disagreement. The predictions of technologically driven wealth creation are hailed as a route to greater leisure and well-being, but that vision is miles from the experience of those earning £10.50 an hour at the Amazon factory in Coventry. Amazon’s technologically intensive business practices undermine their belief in themselves, holding them to targets that they can never know and governing them using technologies and data that are still developing and are not perfect.
Your Lordships should also look at the experience of Equity, the performers’ union, which has campaigned to stop AI stealing the show, as performers are having their images, voices and likenesses reproduced by the technology. Royal Mail requires its workers to use portable digital assistants. The workers describe it as having a tracking device on them constantly, saying that management simply does not trust them. Many feel that these PDAs are creating a punitive work culture.
How can we get agreement on the future of AI if we do not have the transparency, accountability, debate and discussion to make all our citizens feel that they are to be protected? Whether it is in the context of defence, the home, work or the environment, consent and trust are crucial. This is about evaluation, openness, data, ethical integrity and compliance with human rights.
As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said in his very valuable contribution, any regulation has to be founded on civil liberties and be accountable to Parliament, and include the commitment and involvement of our citizens. I cannot tell the Minister how to do this, but I hope your Lordships’ House will make a massive contribution to this very wide debate.
Lord Chartres (CB)
The noble Baroness has illustrated very eloquently the extent to which we already live in and are totally embraced by a technological system. I add my congratulations to my noble friend on securing this debate at a time when we stand on the brink of a transformation in human affairs every bit as momentous as the beginning of the nuclear age.
The technological system that the noble Baroness talked about has even intervened in matters spiritual. If vicars are scarce, you can get answers to questions from a new generation of IT resources. There is Robo Rabbi; a Polish Catholic competitor called SanTO, the Sanctified Theomorphic Operator; and a feeble Protestant version called BlessU-2. Confronted by technologies beyond the comprehension of the non-expert, some have even been tempted to treat Al pronouncements as semi-divine. Anthony Levandowski, a Silicon Valley engineer, established perhaps the first church of artificial intelligence, called Way of the Future. It may be some consolation to noble Lords to know that the sect has quietly closed down and liquidated its funds.
AI bots are in a totally different league from the technologies we have used in the past. Generative AI can simulate human emotions but cannot reflect on its actions; it has no empathy. Recently, the Australian singer-songwriter Nick Cave was sent a lyric composed by ChatGPT in the style of Nick Cave. His response was very significant; he said that his
“songs arise out of suffering”—
he is a man who has suffered the grievous death of two of his sons. He went on to say:
“Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing”.
AI can simulate human emotions, but it has no spirit. Its advent raises very deep questions. Is there a form of logic, that human beings have not or cannot access, that explores aspects of reality that we have never known or cannot directly know? It seems to me that we can regard it as a tool, a partner or a competitor, and seek to confine it, co-operate with it or possibly even defer to it.
The speed of innovation, to which other noble Lords have alluded, makes a reconsideration of the kind of society we wish to inhabit very urgent. We are close to being able to manipulate human beings exactly as we want them to be—genetically, chemically, electrically —but we do not really know what we want them to be. There is an immense time lag between the advance of AI and our capacity to control it. The educational curriculum is increasingly dominated by technical subjects designed to serve the economy with a certain view of efficiency. That is not wrong, but unless we are careful and if educational opportunities and landscapes are narrowed excessively, human beings in our society will have fewer and fewer places from which to mount a critique of the technological system, which as the noble Baroness says embraces us all.
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, the seemingly superhuman achievements of AI are enabled by a greater processing speed and memory storage of computers compared to flesh and blood brains. AI can cope better than humans with data-rich, fast-changing networks—traffic flow, electric grids, image analysis, et cetera. China could have a planned economy of the kind that Mao could have only dreamed of.
However, the societal implications are ambivalent here already. In particular, how can humans remain in the loop? If we are sentenced to a term in prison, recommended for surgery or even given a poor credit rating, we would expect the reasons to be accessible to us and contestable by us. If such decisions were entirely delegated to an algorithm, we would be entitled to feel uneasy, even if presented with compelling evidence that, on average, the machines make better decisions than the humans they have usurped.
AI systems will become more intrusive and pervasive. Records of our movements, health and financial transactions are in “the cloud”, managed by multinational quasi-monopolies. The data may be used for benign reasons—for instance, medical research—but its availability to internet companies is already shifting the balance of power from governments to globe-spanning conglomerates.
Clearly, robots will take over much of manufacturing and retail distribution. They can supplement, if not replace, many white-collar jobs: accountancy, computer coding, medical diagnostics and even surgery. Indeed, I think the advent of ChatGPT renders legal work especially vulnerable. The vast but self-contained volumes of legal literature can all be digested by a machine. In contrast, some skilled service-sector jobs—plumbing and gardening, for instance—require non-routine interactions with the external world and will be among the hardest to automate.
The digital revolution generates enormous wealth for innovators and global companies, but preserving a humane society will surely require redistribution of that wealth. The revenue thereby raised should ideally be hypothecated to vastly enhance the number and status of those who care for the old, the young and the sick. There are currently far too few of these, and they are poorly paid, inadequately esteemed and insecure in their positions. However, these caring jobs are worthy of real human beings and are far more fulfilling than the jobs in call centres or Amazon warehouses which AI can usurp. That kind of redeployment would be win-win. However, AI raises deep anxieties; even in the short-term, ChatGPT’s successors will surely confront us, writ large, with the downsides of existing social media: fake news, photos and videos, unmoderated extremist diatribes, and so forth.
Excited headlines this year have quoted some experts talking about “human extinction”. This may be scaremongering, but the misuse or malfunction of AI is certainly a potential societal threat on the scale of a pandemic. My concern is not so much the science-fiction scenario of a “takeover” by superintelligence as the risk that we will become dependent on interconnected networks whose failure—leading to disruption of the electricity grid, GPS or the internet—could cause societal breakdowns that cascade globally.
Regulation is needed. Innovative algorithms need to be thoroughly tested before wide deployment, by analogy with the rigorous testing of drugs which precedes government approval and release. But regulation is a special challenge in a sector of the economy dominated by a few multinational conglomerates. Just as they can move between jurisdictions to evade fair taxation, so they could evade regulations of AI. How best can the UK help to set up an enforceable regulatory system with global range? It is good news that the Government are tackling this challenge already.
Finally, society will be surely transformed by autonomous robots, even though the jury is out on whether they will be “idiot savants” or will display wide-ranging superhuman intelligence—and whether, if we are overdependent on them, we should worry more about breakdowns and bugs or about being outsmarted, more about maverick artificial intelligence than about real stupidity.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for securing this debate and congratulate him on the way he introduced it. I declare my technology interests as set out in the register.
When we come to consider the regulation of AI, it is first worth considering how we define it. There are multiple definitions out there, but when it comes to regulation, it is best not to draw that definition too tightly and perhaps better to concentrate on those outcomes that are intended and the challenges that we are seeking to avoid. Ultimately, AI is just the deployment of data, and it is our data, so a central pillar must be the explainability of how the AI comes to any decision, and how we should choose to regulate to achieve that level of explainability, which should be for the citizen understanding, not just from a software engineer’s perspective. Does the Minister feel that synthetic data offers a number of potential solutions, not least to the privacy questions, and what would the Government consider in terms of how they would go about the QA-ing and indeed the regulation of such synthetic data?
As has already been discussed, in that it is our data, it is right that we, and indeed every citizen, should have a say—should have a piece in this AI play. It will come down to trustworthiness, and everything that the developers, designers and businesses have to do to make this not trusted but trustworthy.
What more do the Government intend to do to have this level of public debate and discourse around such an existential issue? Similarly, does he agree that it would make sense to consider an AI officer on the board of all businesses of a certain size? I put an amendment to this effect down to the then Financial Services and Markets Bill, as AI is obviously already pervasive across our financial services industry. Would it not make sense for the Government to consult on having AI officers on the board of all businesses?
We have already heard a lot about ChatGPT—you cannot go a day without hearing about it—but what about the energy consumption that it took to train ChatGPT and for its continued use? Has my noble friend considered what the Government might wish to conclude on energy consumption of these AIs? Perhaps it would be better if photonic calculus was used, rather than more traditional math, to massively reduce the energy consumption of these systems.
Similarly, if the public are to be enabled, it will take much more than regulation. Does my noble friend agree that we should look at a complete transformation of our education system: data literacy, data competency, digital competency and financial AI literacy through every beat point of the curriculum. Would that not be a good thing for the Government to go out to consult on over the summer and the autumn?
If we are to make a success of AI—and it is in our human hands to do so—it will be only through the engagement and enablement of every citizen in every society, and understanding how to have that innovation in everybody’s human hands. If we stuff this up and it goes wrong, that will be not a failure of the AI or the technology but a human failure: of legislators, regulators, businesses, corporates and all of us.
What are the plans for the summit this autumn? How broadly will people be engaged? What will be the role for civil society at that summit? Finally, can my noble friend set out briefly what he sees as the key differences between the approach of the UK to AI and that of other jurisdictions, not least the European Union?
We can make a success of what we have in front of us, if we are rationally optimistic, understand the risks and step over the huge hype cycle of both unrealistic potential and overly described fears. We need to consider AI as incredibly powerful—but an incredibly powerful tool in our human hands, where we can grip it and make a success economically, socially and politically for all our citizens.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a freelance television producer. I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Ravensdale on having secured this debate.
Last night, I went on to the ChatGPT website and asked it to write me a speech on the subject in this debate that worries me—the threat that AI poses to journalism—and this is a paragraph that it came up with:
“AI, in its tireless efficiency, threatens to overshadow human journalism. News articles can be automated, and editorials composed without a single thought, a single beating heart behind the words. My fear is that we will descend into a landscape where news is stripped of the very human elements that make it relatable, understood, and ultimately, impactful”.
Many noble Lords might agree that that is a frighteningly good start to my speech. I assure them that, from now on, whatever I say is generated by me rather than ChatGPT.
Generative artificial intelligence has many benefits to offer broadcasting and journalism. For instance, the harnessing of its data processing power will allow a big change in coverage of next month’s World Athletics Championships in Budapest by ITN. Not only will it allow the voiceover to be instantly translated, but it will also be able to manipulate the British sports presenter’s voice to broadcast in six to seven languages simultaneously. This will bring cost savings in translation and presenter fees.
Already there is an Indian television service, Odisha TV, which has an AI-generated presenter that can broadcast throughout the night in several Indian languages. Synthetic voice-generated AI has already arrived and is available for free. The technology to manipulate an image so that a speaker’s lips are synchronised with the voice is commercially available, improving and becoming cheaper by the month. All these advances threaten on-screen and journalistic jobs.
However, noble Lords should be concerned by the threat to the integrity of high-quality journalism, an issue raised by my AI-generated introduction. We are now seeing AI accelerating trends in digital journalism, taking them further and faster than we would have thought possible a few years ago. Noble Lords have only to look at what is happening with AI search. At the moment, many of us will search via a browser such as Google, which will present us with a variety of links, but with AI search the information required is given at a quite different level of sophistication.
For instance, when asked, “What is the situation in Ukraine?”, the new Microsoft AI search tool will give an apparently authoritative three-paragraph response. It will have searched numerous news websites, scraped the information from those sites and sorted them into a three-paragraph answer. When the AI search engine was asked for the provenance of the information, it replied that
“the information is gathered from a variety of sources, including news organisations, government agencies and think tanks”.
Requests for more exact details of the news websites used failed to deliver a more specific answer. As a result, it is not possible for the user to give political weight to the information given, nor to discover its editorial trustworthiness. As many other noble Lords have mentioned, the ability to create deepfakes allows AI to synthesise videos of our public figures saying anything, whether true or not. There is nothing in the terms and conditions for the tech companies to ensure that the answers are truthful.
The very existence of quality journalism is at risk. Already we are seeing the newspaper industry brought to its knees by the big tech platforms’ near-monopoly of digital advertising spend. This has greatly reduced the advertising spend of newspapers, on which much of their revenue depends. Social media is aggregating content from established news sites without paying fees proportionate to the expense of gathering news. The effect on the industry is disastrous, with the closure of hundreds of papers resulting in local news deserts, where the proceedings of local authorities and magistrates are no longer reported to the public. The new AI technology is further exacerbating the financial threat to the whole industry. AI-generating companies can scrape for free the information from news websites, which are already facing the increasing costs of creating original journalistic content. Meanwhile, many AI sites, such as Microsoft’s new AI service, are charging up to $30 a month.
I have been involved in the Online Safety Bill, which has done a wonderful job, with co-operation from the Government and all Benches, to create a law to make the internet so much safer, especially for children. However, it does not do anything to make the internet more truthful. There needs to be pressure on the generative AI creators to ensure that information that they are giving is truthful and transparent. The leaders of our public service media organisations have written to Lucy Frazer, asking her to set up a journalist working group on AI bringing together the various stakeholders in this new AI world to work out a government response. The letter is addressed to DCMS but I would be grateful if the Minister, whose portfolio covers AI policies, could ensure that his department takes an active role in setting up this crucial group.
An election is looming on the horizon. The threat of a misinformation war will make it difficult for voters properly to assess policies and politicians. This war will be massively exacerbated by search AI. It is time for the Government to take action before the new generation of information technology develops out of control.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, in the rather stressful five years that I spent as deputy leader of the Labour Party, I enriched myself and maintained an equilibrium by reading the works of some of the world’s great technologists. I was struck by two very powerful ideas, which is why I congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on this very important debate today.
The first is the idea that, contrary to 2,000 years of conventional wisdom, technological advance is exponential, not linear. The second is the idea of the technological singularity: a hypothetical point in time where technological advance becomes uncontrollable and irreversible. The context that you put your life in when you realise the enormity of those ideas got me through most Shadow Cabinet meetings, but it also allows me to contribute a couple of things to the security discussion that we are having today.
The first of these—I note the caveats of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, about there being contrary views—is that the singularity is no longer hypothetical but inevitable. The second is that, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, said, AI can enhance human life beyond our imagination. It can prolong our lives, eliminate famine and reduce illness; it might even reverse global warming. However, if infused with the consciousness of people with dark hearts—the autocrats, the totalitarians, the nihilists—it could destroy us.
When addressing these security threats, there are a couple of things that we have to understand. Unavoidable and sad, the situation in which we find ourselves is that we are currently in an international prisoner’s dilemma. The UK has to maintain investment in areas such as cybersecurity and R&D towards our own sovereign quantum computing capacity. I also think that autonomous machines are probably as inevitable as the next pandemic and our preparedness for that has to be as urgent, and at the same scale, as our current deployment on pandemic management.
We have averted nuclear war for the last 60 years through proper statecraft, political leadership and defence cogency. That context is important here, is it not? Whatever our current disagreements with countries such as China, Russia or Iran, humanity’s interests align when faced with the consequences of uncontrolled AI.
When it comes to economic threats to this country, the situation is much less bleak. Government’s approach to economic growth in the creative industries could be to divide generative and assistive AI when it comes to regulation. Much has been said in recent months on the impact of AI on the music industry, for example, in which I declare an interest as the chair of UK Music. It is important to acknowledge that music has used AI for many years now as an assistive tool. For example, Sir Paul McCartney has recently announced a new Beatles song using AI-based tech to clean up old recordings of John Lennon’s voice. The Apple corporation used AI to create the “Get Back” film on the Beatles, which allowed Sir Paul McCartney to sing a duet with a virtual John Lennon at the Glastonbury festival last year.
The crux of the issue for commerce is consent. With the Beatles examples, permission would have had to be granted from John Lennon’s estate. Consent is that crucial theme that we need to enshrine in AI regulation to protect human creativity. So, in concluding, I ask the Minister to confirm that, at the very least, the Government will rule out any new exceptions on copyright for text and data-mining purposes. Can he do so in this debate?
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I join in thanking my noble friend Lord Ravensdale for introducing this topical and very important debate. I was fortunate to be a member of the Lords Select Committee, together with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford as well as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, some six years ago. We did a deep dive into the benefits of AI, as well as the risks. One of our conclusions was the necessity for joined-up thinking when it comes to regulation.
There is no denying that AI is the most powerful technology of our times, but many are getting alarmed at the speed of its delivery. It took Facebook four and a half years to get 100 million users; it took Google two and a half years to get 100 million users; but it took ChatGPT just two months.
I particularly welcome its potential for advancing personalised healthcare as well as education. It will also accelerate the deployment of transformational climate solutions and, no doubt, in the bigger picture of the economy it will accelerate a rapid surge in productivity. However, that poses the question of what jobs will be augmented by AI. My simple answer to that is that we have to focus a lot more on upskilling in all SMEs to take account of what AI will have in the future. It is generally accepted that the long-term impact of AI on employment in the UK will be broadly neutral, but the impact of generative AI on productivity could add trillions of dollars in value to the global economy.
I listened yesterday to the podcast “The AI Dilemma”, with leading AI global experts arguing about the potential risk. What I found alarming was that 50% of leading AI researchers believe that there is a 10% or greater chance that humans could go extinct as a result of their inability to control AI. Personally, I do not share that alarmist approach. I do not believe that there is an existential threat while the focus is on narrow AI. General AI, on the other hand, remains a theoretical concept and has not yet been achieved.
On the question of regulation, there have been growing calls for Governments around the world to adapt quickly to the challenges that AI is already delivering and to the potential transformational changes in the future with those associated risk factors. There have been more and more calls for a moratorium on AI development. Equally, I do not believe that that is possible. Regulators need cross-collaboration and cross-regulation to solve the biggest problems. There is also a need for more evidence gathering and case studies.
Public trust in AI is going to be a major challenge. Communication beyond policy is important for private and public understanding. In terms of regulation, the financial services sector’s use of AI is a lot more regulated than any other sector’s. Just as regulators need to focus on addressing safety risks in the use of AI, so the regulators themselves need to be upskilled with the new advances in this technology.
DCMS appears to be taking a light touch in regulating AI, which I welcome. I also welcome initiatives by UKRI to fund responsible AI and an AI task force. However, there needs to be more focus on building ecosystems for different regulators in how to rejuvenate the supply chain of AI. The future is uncertain.
The public sector, as we all know, is likely to be a lot slower to embrace the benefits of AI. By way of example, I am sure that the Department for Work and Pensions could do a lot more with all its data to formulate algorithms for greater efficiency and provide better support to the public in these difficult times. We need a co-ordinated approach across all government departments to agree an AI strategy.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that AI is here to stay and no doubt about the incredible potential it holds, but we need joined-up thinking and collaboration. It is accepted that AI will never be able to replace humans, but humans with AI could potentially replace humans who do not embrace AI.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, everyone taking part in this welcome debate, for which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is aware of the arrival of ChatGPT. Perhaps not everyone may know that it is the latest stage in the quest, dating back to the Dartmouth conference of 1956, to build a machine capable of simulating every aspect of human intelligence. Current hype claims that ChatGPT will be able to generate content that is indistinguishable from human-created output, automatically producing language, lyrics, music, images and videos in any style possible following a simple user prompt.
University teachers are understandably alarmed. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, a philosopher friend of mine also asked ChatGPT a question. He teaches philosophy at a university. The question was: is there a distinctively female style in moral philosophy? He sent its answer to his colleagues. One found it “uncannily human”. “To be sure”, she wrote,
“it is a pretty trite essay, but at least it is clear, grammatical, and addresses the question, which makes it better than many of our students’ essays”.
She gave it a 2:2. In other words, ChatGPT passes the Turing test, exhibiting intelligent behaviour that is indistinguishable from that of a human being. ChatGPT, we are told, is only a stepping stone to superintelligence.
Other people have been alarmed. On March 22, the Future of Life Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, issued an open letter signed by thousands of tech leaders, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, calling for a six-month pause—a Government-imposed moratorium—on developing AI systems more powerful than ChatGPT. It said:
“AI systems with human-competitive intelligence can pose profound risks to society and humanity”.
The letter goes on to warn of the
“out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control”.
So what is to be done? The Future of Life Institute suggests several possible ways of trying to stop AI going rogue. Its proposals include mandating third-party auditing and certification, regulating access to computational power, creating capable regulatory agencies at the national level, establishing liability for harms caused by AI, increasing funding for safety research and developing standards for identifying and managing AI-generated content. All of these proposals are very sensible and very difficult.
There are two problems. The first is to identify what is good AI and what is bad AI. Numerous codes of conduct for responsible use of AI exist, but they lack binding force. One proposal, developed by the Carnegie Council for Ethics, is for the United Nations to create a global AI observatory, which would monitor good and bad practice and develop a technology passport which all member states could use in devising their own regulation. However, the problem of developing a generally agreed normative framework for the development of AI would still not be solved. I do not quite buy the story of all those repentant Frankensteins.
The second problem is that no state has an incentive to halt the funding of AI developments which will promise it a military advantage. There is a competitive race to develop new killer apps. We are already being told that we must get our AI into space before China. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens. In other words, there can be no pause for reflection if AI development is considered a military race. You do not pause in the middle of such a race; the race itself has to stop. International co-operation is the only way of preventing uncontrollable consequences. We have very little of that at the moment. One thing I am absolutely sure about is that all religious faiths must be involved in any such global conversation.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I found it hard to know where to start in trying to address the subject of this debate. Professor Geoffrey Hinton, whom other noble Lords have already invoked, has said that
“it's quite conceivable that humanity is just a passing phase in the evolution of intelligence”.
From the existential risk to humanity—not, in my view, to be lightly dismissed as scaremongering—through to the danger of bad actors using AI for bad things, to the opportunity to re-energise productivity growth by responsibly harnessing generative AI, a mind-boggling range of issues are raised by today’s Motion.
The introduction from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, could not have been bettered as a summary and agenda—an encouragement, perhaps, that humanity has not yet been displaced in the hierarchy of intelligence. The AI entrepreneur Jakob Uszkoreit is quoted in today’s Financial Times:
“In deep learning, nothing is ever just about the equations … it’s a giant bag of black magic tricks that only very few people have truly mastered”.
This echoes the question from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Who among us, in or out of government, really understands this?
Not only is it a black box but, from what we lay people know, it is one that is changing breathtakingly fast, as my noble friend Lady Primarolo has said. Moore’s law, which observed that the number of transistors on a semiconductor doubles every two years, is nothing compared with the pace of AI development. As a foundation model or platform, GPT saw the number of parameters between GPT 1 and GPT 2 increase by 1.3 billion in less than two years. The increase in parameters in a single year between GPT 2 and GPT 3 was over 100 times greater, at 173 billion—as my noble friend Lord Watson said, it is exponential, not linear. As a simplified representation of the speed of AI’s development, this simultaneously indicates the opportunities to harness it for good on the one hand and demonstrates the formidable challenge for regulation on the other.
I am temperamentally an optimist and therefore excited by the positive contribution that advanced AI can make to our world. However, in the time available, I want to focus on two of the challenges: the macro issue of regulation and the more specific question of fake news. In that context, I highlight two of my interests declared in the register. I am a trustee of the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, which has an endowment with investments in US and other VC funds with holdings in advanced AI companies. I am chair of the Thomson Foundation, which trains journalists, principally in low-income and/or low press freedom countries.
Regulation of advanced AI is inevitably complex. It may be right to focus in the short term on ensuring existing regulators adequately consider the impact of AI. However, in the longer term, there has to be specific overarching regulation, as I think is implied by the Government’s declared aspiration for the UK to be the geographical centre of global AI regulation. Could the Minister say what the Government’s objectives are for the global AI summit being convened for later this year? What arguments have they used for the UK to be the global centre of regulation? When, six years ago, the founder of a Silicon Valley software company described GDPR to me as the de facto global standard for data protection, that reflected the sheer size of the EU market to which it applied. That is not a factor which applies now to the UK’s negotiating position.
Finally, the media, both mainstream and social, are a vital source of information for us all; the integrity of that information lies at the heart of democracy. Your Lordships may have seen the amusing faked photograph of Pope Francis in a fashionable puffer jacket. Other future faked images could be deeply dangerous to stability and security, both globally and, in particular, in low-income countries. Regulation cannot be the only answer to this; education and training are also essential. Can the Minister urge his colleagues in the FCDO to protect and increase funding for media development and journalist training in low-income countries, with a central focus on countering AI-generated fake news, from whatever source?
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Prime Minister on the initiative he has taken in the field of AI, but I have very grave concerns about the framework that has been put in place for monitoring it. At the moment, it is far too vague, and, with its stress on innovation, there is a real danger of some of the ethical concerns simply being sidelined.
One major danger of advanced AI is the way it could increase the amount of misinformation in the public realm, as the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, emphasised. Society exists only on the assumption that most people most of the time are telling the truth, and the Government have the assent of the people only on the basis that what they put forward is, basically, to be trusted. In recent years, as we know, the issues of truth and trust have become critical. People have talked about a post-truth age, in which there is only your truth and my truth. We have conspiracy theorists, with false information being fed into our communication system. I worry, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, raised, about forms of artificial intelligence that can mimic public authorities or reputable sources of information; people of ill will could infiltrate all kinds of systems, from government departments to think tanks and university research departments. That is only one danger; there are of course many others.
The Government have stressed that they are taking a pro-innovation approach to AI and do not want to set up a new regulatory body. There is indeed a good reason for that: AI operates very differently in different fields. Obviously, its use in medical diagnosis or research, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, emphasised, is very different from its use in military targeting, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, emphasised. However, what the Government intend to put in place at the moment is far too ill-defined and vague.
The Government have moved to dissolve the AI Council. They have said that it will be replaced by a group of expert advisers, together with the new Foundation Model Taskforce, led by the technology entrepreneur Ian Hogarth, which will, they say, spearhead the adaptation and regulation of technology in the UK. It seems to me that the first and most important function of the task force should be to monitor what is happening and then to alert government about any potential issues.
I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, mention the HFEA, of which I was once a member, because it provides an interesting and suggestive model. It too deals with far-reaching scientific advances that raise major ethical questions. To grapple with them, it has a horizon-scanning group composed of leading scientists in the field, whose job is to be aware of developments around the world, which are then reported to a committee to consider any legal and ethical implications arising from them.
In his excellent and well-informed opening speech, my noble friend Lord Ravensdale suggested that research and regulation belong together. I will nuance that slightly by suggesting that, although they of course have to be kept very closely together, they are in fact separate functions. I believe that the new AI task force must, first, have a horizon-scanning function on research, and, in addition, have the capacity to reflect on possible ethical implications. Although the details of that would then have to be put out to the relevant sectors where there are already regulatory regimes, they themselves will need to know what is going on right across the different fields in which AI operates, and then they will need to be able to highlight ethical concerns. My concern is that the pro-innovation approach to AI might lead to the neglect of those functions. To avoid that, we need a clearly set-up central body, the clear focus of which is different from that of innovation and adaptation; it would be to monitor developments and then to raise any ethical concerns.
Such a central body would not, at this stage, need a regulator. However, that time might indeed come. The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, and many leading figures in the industry feel that the time has come for a new regulator—something perhaps along the lines of the International Atomic Energy Agency. For the moment, I hope the Government will at least give due thought to giving the task force a much clearer remit both to monitor developments across the field and to raise potential ethical concerns.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I too add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for securing today’s timely debate. With rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, the possibilities seem boundless, but they also come with potentially significant risks. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, I will speak to how the opportunities and risks of the development of AI pertain to healthcare.
Machine learning, and more recently deep learning—commonly referred to as AI—have already shown remarkable potential in various fields, and both harbour opportunities to transform healthcare in ways that were previously unimaginable. AI can be used to process vast amounts of medical data, including patient records, genomic information and imaging scans, and to assist doctors in more accurate and timely diagnosis and prognosis. The early detection of diseases and personalised treatment plans can dramatically improve people’s quality of life and help save countless lives. AI can be used to analyse the genetic make-up of patients, and, in time, will better predict how individuals will respond to specific treatments, leading to more targeted and effective therapies, reducing adverse reactions and improving overall treatment success rates.
AI-assisted automation can streamline administrative tasks, freeing up healthcare professionals to focus on direct patient care. That has the potential to improve productivity dramatically in healthcare, as well as patient satisfaction, at a time when waiting lists and workforce shortages are, rightly, giving rise to concerns about their impact on our well-being and the UK economy. AI-powered algorithms can significantly accelerate, and thereby derisk, drug discovery and development, potentially leading to new breakthrough medications for diseases that have remained incurable.
While the promises of AI in healthcare are alluring, we must acknowledge its limitations and the potential risks associated with its development. The use of vast amounts of data to train AI models is bound to raise concerns about data privacy and security. Unauthorised access or data breaches could lead to severe consequences for public trust in new uses of this potentially game-changing technology. The models which underpin AI are only as good as the datasets they are trained on. Bias in the data underpinning AI in healthcare could lead to discriminatory decisions and exacerbate healthcare inequalities. Complex algorithms can be challenging to interpret, leading to a lack of transparency in decision-making processes. This opacity is liable to raise questions about accountability and give rise to new ethical considerations. We must ensure that we do not enter trading arrangements which might prevent our being able to assess the efficiency and risks associated with AI development elsewhere for its use in healthcare settings.
Crucially, where risks have the potential to be matters of life or death, we must resist the temptation to underresource pertinent regulators, and we should be mindful of hyperbole in our pursuit of innovation. To harness fully the potential of AI in healthcare while mitigating its risks, comprehensive and adaptive regulatory frameworks are imperative, both at national and international levels. The UK Government, in collaboration with international organisations, should commit to developing common standards and guardrails, by making the most of the global summit on AI safety that they will host in the autumn and contributing to the Hiroshima AI Process established by the G7. Any guardrails should be guided by the precautionary principle and prioritise patient safety, both now and in the future.
AI used in healthcare must undergo rigorous testing and validation to ensure its accuracy, safety and effectiveness. Independent bodies such as the MHRA can oversee this process if they are appropriately resourced, instilling confidence in both healthcare providers and patients. As the noble Lords, Lord Browne, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Holmes, and others said, the public should be involved in shaping AI regulations. While the Government’s AI task force is to be welcomed, it is imperative that civil society be engaged in the development of standards and guardrails applicable to AI in healthcare from the outset. The ongoing development of AI in healthcare harbours immense promise and potential. However, it is crucial that we approach this transformative technology with a careful understanding of its risks and a clear commitment to robust regulation and maintaining public trust. By fostering collaboration, we must usher in a new era of healthcare that is safer and more efficient and delivers improved patient outcomes for all.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, having greedily signed up to all three debates taking place today because all are on topics close to my heart, I will try to keep the contributions short. I probably should have asked AI to write my speeches today—it would have saved time and doubtless made them much better. However, this is all my own work, and it is not wholly in AI’s favour.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for raising this issue. The development of advanced AI raises many significant risks and considerable opportunities, as with all technological advances. The technology itself is complicated, poorly understood and thus intimidating. As the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, noted, much of the public and policy debate is sensationalist as a result—we fear what we do not understand.
I do not pretend to understand the intricacies of AI engineering, so I will focus my attention on the implications for intellectual property rights. This is an area I know as an IP litigator qualified in the US and the UK, and I have clients in this space. I also note my interests as a member of the IP APPG, which champions the interests of IP rights holders. The APPG engaged with urgency last year following the Government’s announcement that they planned to introduce a new exception to copyright and database rights to permit text and data mining—or TDM—for any purpose. Currently TDM—in effect, the scraping of information from the internet—is permitted without a licence only for the purpose of academic research. The Government proposed to turbocharge the UK’s AI development by broadening this exception to allow TDM for all purposes, commercial or otherwise, irrespective of the rights and views of the authors of that material, in effect, riding a coach and horses through the long-established IP rights of individual creatives in the interests of the AI machines. The dystopian implications were clear.
Thankfully, sense and the APPG prevailed. The Government withdrew that proposal and have begun to investigate alternative solutions with the industry, such as collective licensing and consent that might respect authors’ rights. Can the Minister please give the House an update on those important discussions?
Despite this, since the public launch of multiple large language model AI systems, such as Open AI’s ChatGPT, Stability AI and others, it has become readily apparent that they have been extensively trained or “educated” using copyrighted materials for which no consent has been given. There is a real risk that AI is, in effect, larceny—an industry built on the theft of the personal property of creative authors for commercial ends. The flood of IP infringement cases that have followed would suggest this. I note, for example, Getty Images’ recent UK copyright infringement case against Stability AI’s image generation system and, more famously perhaps, Sarah Silverman’s American case against Open AI and Meta for theft of her written material.
Such is the brazen nature of this conduct that it seems that the creators of AI models consider they have no need to license protected works in training their machines—either because they are outside the jurisdiction or they consider that the “training” of their LLMs is educational. What steps have the Government taken to engage with them on this topic? I understand this is not the view of the Intellectual Property Office, which stated last year:
“Although factual data, trends and concepts are not protected by copyright, they are often embedded in copyright works. Data mining systems copy works to extract and analyse the data they contain. Unless permitted under licence or an exception, making such copies will constitute copyright infringement”.
Does the Minister agree with that statement and therefore that any large language model firms making copies without permission or exception will be infringing copyright?
Finally, can the Minister please update the House as to the Government’s thinking regarding AI inventions? When they reported last June, the Government had no plan to change the UK’s patent law because AI was not “yet” advanced enough to invent without human intervention. Given the rapid developments since, has the Government’s view changed on this point?
I note that the UK is co-ordinating closely with the United States on this issue. In the US in Thaler v Vidal, the Federal Circuit said that AI cannot be an inventor for US patents, but the USPTO has sought fresh evidence on the point. Similarly, the Copyright Office in the US rejected the registration of copyright in AI-generated works but has issued guidance and sought further evidence on the topic. What are the UK Government doing?
These are important issues. The sensitive balancing of the creative rights of the individual versus realising the extensive promise of machine learning is a key challenge for our times. Personally, I hope the humans will prevail.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for enabling this important and timely debate on a subject which I believe is going to dominate our lives for many years to come and is probably the single most important issue in front of us today. In speaking today, I draw the attention of your Lordships’ House to my declared interests in the register.
From the news that we consume, to the way that we bank, and even the way in which some in this Chamber have prepared for their contributions, AI is now an unavoidable, omnipresent and unstoppable factor in our daily lives. The task for legislators—not just here but across the globe—is to strike the right balance between regulating to protect individuals and businesses and trying to ensure that regulation passed by layman legislators does not supress the incredible innovation enabled by experts and free market demands.
It is universally understood that AI will eventually have a greater economic impact than the industrial revolution once did. Indeed, AI presents itself as the greatest economic opportunity in a generation and will be worth hundreds of billions to UK GDP by 2030. We would therefore be foolish to seek any regulation which scuppered the competitive edge that London and the wider United Kingdom have already established when it comes to the safe, ethical, and innovative application of artificial intelligence.
I therefore put it to your Lordships’ House that the Government have got the balance right in adopting a “pro-innovation” approach to AI. Our renowned universities and research institutions in their active collaboration with industry have driven AI development and continue to enhance the UK’s competitiveness on the global stage. I would be interested to know how the Government will facilitate and support more such collaboration in the near future.
Similarly, our financial institutions are at the forefront of utilising the power of AI for growth, and the UK is harnessing the power of AI to develop more efficient public services and enable lifesaving advancements in healthcare and medicine, as we have heard this afternoon. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that in order to remain a global leader in AI we must never adopt the prescriptive and restrictive approach that was taken by the EU in the passage of the EU AI Act? What analysis have the Government undertaken on the impact this EU legislation will have on the many British companies trading in the EU?
The Government should be highly commended for asserting British prowess and leadership in AI. The recent contributions made by the Foreign Secretary at the UN Security Council last week and the Government’s announcement that the UK will host the first global summit on artificial intelligence show not only that they are taking AI seriously but that they are paving the way for the UK to be a globally significant force for good when it comes to realising the opportunities and confronting the challenges of AI.
As a member of the International Agreements Committee, I turn now to the impact of artificial intelligence on international trade. I welcome the UK’s accession to the CPTPP and the other recently secured trade deals, but I query whether, when it comes to our trading negotiations, we are currently giving enough attention to the implications that AI will have on areas such as regulatory co-operation, digital trade and wider workforce issues. In his summing up today, could my noble friend the Minister reassure the House that, beyond creating and promoting an economy that supports AI development, our negotiation teams are poised to not only embrace the opportunities of AI but actively identify the future threats and challenges that it could pose to the security of our trading relations?
I am conscious of time. I ask the Government to adapt proportionately to the golden thread of future AI regulations, and to be ever mindful of the burden that regulation causes for industry and for the businesses that underpin our economy.
I am confident that if the Government continue along the same path, acting as an enabler, an alliance builder and an industry-informed safeguarder, AI will be an unparalleled opportunity for growth and the making of a modern Britain.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, first, I salute my noble friend Lord Ravensdale for securing this much-overdue debate. AI is a huge and challenging subject, so my focus today will be limited to its potential economic impact. I refer to my interests as set out in the register as an adviser and investor in start-ups and early-stage ventures.
I must confess that, like the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, I was briefly tempted to outsource my AI speech to a chatbot to see if anybody noticed. I tested two large language models; within seconds, both delivered 500-word speeches, which were credible if somewhat generic. AGI—artificial general intelligence —will soon be able to write my speeches in my personal style, having scraped Hansard, and deliver it in my voice through natural language understanding, having analysed and processed my speeches on parliamentlive.tv, and with no hesitation, repetition or deviation.
Is it an exciting or alarming prospect that your Lordships might one day be replaced by “Peerbots” with deeper knowledge, higher productivity and lower running costs? This is the prospect for perhaps as many as 5 million workers in the UK over the next 10 years. That said, the UK economy is in dire need of AI to address low productivity and growth, and critical capacity constraints, most notably our workforce. The economy model of adding millions of low-skilled jobs, or making people work longer hours, is not sustainable. We have an ageing population, a shrinking workforce, record numbers of long-term sick and a health sector in perpetual crisis with unprecedented waiting lists. We need a qualitative, not quantitative, approach to economic growth and AI could play a critical role.
The UK’s productivity has been in the doldrums for almost 20 years, with output per hour well down on the levels in Germany, France, the US and many other countries. Forecasts on the economic impact of AI vary wildly, with some forecasting 20% to 30% rises in productivity, set against the disappearance of up to 30% of jobs. It is educated guesswork at this stage. Some predict that AI will lift GDP growth by an additional, but hugely significant, 2% per annum. A word of warning: we had similar expectations with the digital revolution. If you look back over the last 25 years, we have indeed witnessed extraordinary changes both as workers and consumers: the smartphone, e-commerce, automation, video communications, contactless payments, and working from home. However, in the decade leading to the pandemic, when GDP growth averaged a modest 1.8% per annum, 1.2% of that growth came from working longer hours, 0.5% came from capital investment and just 0.1% came from innovation and better working practices.
While AI looks set to have a transformative impact on our working practices, as the digital world has done, the big question remains over the net impact on economic growth. As with the digital economy, the risk is that AI may ultimately lead to a few dominant tech giants with huge market share, and further skew the distribution of wealth.
I appreciate that this will be a global dynamic largely beyond the control of our Government, but I conclude by asking the Minister two questions. First, how will the Government nurture a multiplicity of AI players in the UK rather than a dominant few? Secondly, mindful of the recent cuts in R&D tax credits in this year’s Budget, how will SMEs be incentivised to adopt and invest in AI technology to boost their productivity and competitive edge?
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the takeaway from me from this informative debate is to ask: where do we go from here? Artificial intelligence is vital to our national interest, in regional prosperity, and for shared global challenges. It should be seen as an instrument that shows us the bigger picture in a vast, complex, and detailed chain over which no single country, or corporate, should ever have overall control. Caution must be assured that every data point, statistical analysis and prediction model be spot on. There may be dire consequences if we are ever reliant on data that is unverified, inaccurate or misleading due to misunderstandings of context or nuances that result in—in the jargon—technological hallucinations. Failing to do so could compromise the whole AI experience.
Got right, however, AI policy and regulation will play a vital role in monitoring compliance, analysing trends and assessing the impact of policies, providing transparency, trust and accountability that will ensure that AI-driven decisions and recommendations produce credible, far-reaching results. It can tell us, for example, where to seek proof of reliability, raise red flags and shed light on the previously invisible interconnection of the global economy by assisting us in understanding the complexities of trade dynamics.
Artificial intelligence is a comparatively unexplored component that can impact international trade. When used to help grow economies in a fast, efficient and fair manner, by pointing to the exact location of risks involved in a long-chain transaction, or a complex supply chain, this is all to the good. There is currently no system, however, that monitors and identifies suspicious global trade patterns, no mapping of complex international trade flows and no overall analysis of international trading patterns across multiple countries. AI can change all that. Nationally built systems in technological and political silos must be avoided to combat these challenges. However, collaborative efforts between nation states will enable a comprehensive understanding of patterns and devising targeted strategies. Collaborative efforts such as Project Perseus bring together technology, finance, and policy to unlock sustainable access for SMEs through data-sharing of accurate data from the real economy related to energy usage and resilience. This is critical for UK stakeholders in the business and banking world.
Some 200 million bills of lading, the documents at the heart of international trade, were recently examined by the International Centre for Trade Transparency and Monitoring, to which I am a party, revealing that 13.6% of these documents included at least one substantive inaccuracy. Such mistakes can quickly spread through a supply chain, posing risks that can have far-reaching effects on the economy, covering up inappropriate trade practices such as dumping, counterfeit or sanctions avoidance. Results that are 1 degree out skew detailed analysis.
ESG reporting is also becoming the new norm for companies to communicate their environmental, social and governance credentials to the markets. Interoperability affords legal protection and a process that safeguards SMEs and banks alike. AI also has great value in the prevention and detection of crime, especially fraud. When applied, it can save many staff hours and be a driver to get to the heart of the crime. What took a human researcher two days now takes an hour.
Before we launch into creating further uses of data, it is essential to ensure that government and industry have governance right. To underline all this, we need look no further than to a notice distributed to all Members in Parliament from the parliamentary digital department, informing us that
“generative AI tools are susceptible to bias and misinformation”.
We have the frameworks and processes in place to deliver success, but the time for theory is over.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interests in the register. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for initiating this very timely debate and for inspiring such a thought-provoking and informed set of speeches today. The narrative around AI swirls back and forwards in this age of generative AI, to an even greater degree than when our AI Select Committee conducted its inquiry in 2017-18—it is very good to see a number of members of that committee here today. For instance, in March more than 1,000 technologists called for a moratorium on AI development. This month, another 1,000 technologists said that AI is a force for good. As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, we need to separate the hype from the reality to an even greater extent.
Our Prime Minister seems to oscillate between various narratives. One month we have an AI governance White Paper suggesting an almost entirely voluntary approach to regulation, and then shortly thereafter he talks about AI as an existential risk. He wants the UK to be a global hub for AI and a world leader in AI safety, with a summit later this year, which a number of noble Lords discussed.
I will not dwell too much on the definition of AI. The fact is that the EU and OECD definitions are now widely accepted, as is the latter’s classification framework, but I very much liked what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, said about our need to decide whether it is tool, partner or competitor. We heard today of the many opportunities AI presents to transform many aspects of people’s lives for the better, from healthcare—mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Freyberg, in particular—to scientific research, education, trade, agriculture and meeting many of the sustainable development goals. There may be gains in productivity, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, postulated, or in the detection of crime, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said.
However, AI also clearly presents major risks, especially reflecting and exacerbating social prejudices and bias, the misuse of personal data and undermining the right to privacy, such as in the use of live facial recognition technology. We have the spreading of misinformation, the so-called hallucinations of large language models and the creation of deepfakes and hyper-realistic sexual abuse imagery, as the NSPCC has highlighted, all potentially exacerbated by new open-source large language models that are coming. We have a Select Committee, as we heard today from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, looking at the dilemmas posed by lethal autonomous weapons. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, we have major threats to national security. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, interestingly mentioned the question of overdependence on artificial intelligence—a rather new but very clearly present risk for the future.
We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, that we must have an approach to AI that augments jobs as far as possible and equips people with the skills they need, whether to use new technology or to create it. We should go further on a massive skills and upskilling agenda and much greater diversity and inclusion in the AI workforce. We must enable innovators and entrepreneurs to experiment, while taking on concentrations of power, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Lords, Lord Rees and Lord Londesborough, emphasised. We must make sure that they do not stifle and limit choice for consumers and hamper progress. We need to tackle the issues of access to semiconductors, computing power and the datasets necessary to develop large language generative AI models, as the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Watson, mentioned.
However, the key and most pressing challenge is to build public trust, as we heard from so many noble Lords, and ensure that new technology is developed and deployed ethically, so that it respects people’s fundamental rights, including the rights to privacy and non-discrimination, and so that it enhances rather than substitutes for human creativity and endeavour. Explainability is key, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said. I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that we need to make sure that we adopt these high-level ethical principles, but I do not believe that is enough. A long gestation period of national AI policy-making has ended up producing a minimal proposal for:
“A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation”,
which, in substance, will amount to toothless exhortation by sectoral regulators to follow ethical principles and a complete failure to regulate AI development where there is no regulator.
Much of the White Paper’s diagnosis of the risks and opportunities of AI is correct. It emphasises the need for public trust and sets out the attendant risks, but the actual governance prescription falls far short and goes nowhere in ensuring where the benefit of AI should be distributed. There is no recognition that different forms of AI are technologies that need a comprehensive cross-sectoral approach to ensure that they are transparent, explainable, accurate and free of bias, whether they are in a regulated or an unregulated sector. Business needs clear central co-ordination and oversight, not a patchwork of regulation. Existing coverage by legal duties is very patchy: bias may be covered by the Equality Act and data issues by our data protection laws but, for example, there is no existing obligation for ethics by design for transparency, explainability and accountability, and liability for the performance of AI systems is very unclear.
We need to be clear, above all, as organisations such as techUK are, that regulation is not necessarily the enemy of innovation. In fact, it can be the stimulus and the key to gaining and retaining public trust around AI and its adoption, so that we can realise the benefits and minimise the risks. What I believe is needed is a combination of risk-based, cross-sectoral regulation, combined with specific regulation in sectors such as financial services, underpinned by common, trustworthy standards of testing, risk and impact assessment, audit and monitoring. We need, as far as possible, to ensure international convergence, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rees, and interoperability of these standards of AI systems, and to move towards common IP treatment of AI products.
We have world-beating AI researchers and developers. We need to support their international contribution, not fool them that they can operate in isolation. If they have any international ambitions, they will have to decide to conform to EU requirements under the forthcoming AI legislation and ensure that they avoid liability in the US by adopting the AI risk management standards being set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Can the Minister tell us what the next steps will be, following the White Paper? When will the global summit be held? What is the AI task force designed to do and how? Does he agree that international convergence on standards is necessary and achievable? Does he agree that we need to regulate before the advent of artificial general intelligence, as a number of noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Fairfax and Lord Watson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, suggested?
As for the creative industries, there are clearly great opportunities in relation to the use of AI. Many sectors already use the technology in a variety of ways to enhance their creativity and make it easier for the public to discover new content, in the manner described by the noble Lord, Lord Watson.
But there are also big questions over authorship and intellectual property, and many artists feel threatened. Responsible AI developers seek to license content which will bring in valuable income. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said, many of the large language model developers seem to believe that they do not need to seek permission to ingest content. What discussion has the Minister, or other Ministers, had with these large language model firms in relation to their responsibilities for copyright law? Can he also make a clear statement that the UK Government believe that the ingestion of content requires permission from rights holders, and that, should permission be granted, licences should be sought and paid for? Will he also be able to update us on the code of practice process in relation to text and data-mining licensing, following the Government’s decision to shelve changes to the exemption and the consultation that the Intellectual Property Office has been undertaking?
There are many other issues relating to performing rights, copying of actors, musicians, artists and other creators’ images, voices, likeness, styles and attributes. These are at the root of the Hollywood actors and screenwriters’ strike as well as campaigns here from the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain and from Equity. We need to ensure that creators and artists derive the full benefit of technology, such as AI-made performance synthetisation and streaming. I very much hope that the Minister can comment on that as well.
We have only scratched the surface in tackling the AI governance issues in this excellent debate, but I hope that the Minister’s reply can assure us that the Government are moving forward at pace on this and will ensure that a debate of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, has called for goes forward.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is of course to be congratulated —we have all managed to do so—on stimulating such a thought-provoking and thoughtful debate. I observe that this is one of the occasions on which Cross-Bench contributions far outnumber contributions from those of us who have a political label attached. There is a good reason for that: not only do our Cross-Bench colleagues bring independence and expertise, but they also bring knowledge and insight, and we should be very grateful for that, to echo the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
This debate is indeed timely. Artificial intelligence has gone from theory to reality in a short time, and from marginal to mainstream. Innovation is of course in part being driven by our UK tech start-up and scale-up firms, which my party believes is essential if we are to secure the strongest sustained economic growth in the G7, which we need to secure if we are to meet our nation’s challenges and move away from our current flatlining economy.
A decade ago, most people’s experience of AI was limited to things like the tagging of photographs on social media, whereas now we can unlock our mobile phone with face ID and use AI to generate many forms of content—images, videos, essays, speeches and even data analysis—in a matter of seconds. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, reminded us, AI can now be used to simulate Beatles hits from the past and create modern duets. The creative sector will benefit greatly from AI.
Impressive as these developments are, they can be considered fairly basic when looking at many new forms of advanced AI, the focus of today’s debate. The Lords Library briefing notes the use of AI in the financial services sector in relation to identifying suspicious transactions, but its application in that sector is even more widespread. Many banks’ mobile apps can categorise purchases to help people track how much they are spending on food or fashion and push personalised offers for supplementary products such as credit cards or insurance. If you need help, you will likely encounter an AI assistant. I can even use an AI assistant to help me choose where best to sit in my local football club’s football stadium.
There is no doubt that these tools are having a positive impact in many realms, making previously complex processes more straightforward. Firms and public services are benefiting, with AI technologies improving the identification of certain types of cancer, the safety of transport networks, the handling of spikes in demand for energy and so on.
Labour believes that AI can be used for even greater good. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, made a compelling argument regarding the NHS and the healthcare sector. We would wish to see new technologies cut waiting lists, better identify a broader range of illnesses and improve diagnostics. In the welfare system, it could be used to personalise jobseekers’ return-to-work plans and spot the fraud and loss that cost the Exchequer billions each year.
However, as noble Lords have observed, with opportunity comes risk. While AI can be put to positive use, we are seeing more and more examples of new technologies having unintended consequences or being deliberately deployed by the dark side in undesirable ways. Many noble Lords have spoken about the risks of AI today, whether those concerns are around bias and discrimination, privacy, security or AI’s impact on jobs and wealth distribution.
We do not need to go far to find evidence of AI being misused, and there are particularly worrying trends in the security realm. AI tools are being used to generate convincing text messages. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, made a very good argument covering that point. AI can also simulate voice clips which purport to come from loved ones, friends, neighbours or family, leaving people increasingly vulnerable to scams. There is evidence that AI chatbots are being programmed to radicalise young people, which is why the shadow Home Secretary has announced that Labour will criminalise the deliberate training of chatbots to promote terrorism and violence.
During the passage of the Online Safety Bill, the House debated the rollout of AI-generated content and the growth in the metaverse when looking at the latter. It is said that police forces have voiced concern about the scale of misogyny and racism and the potential for child abuse. As noted in the Library briefing and by noble Lords today, the risks of AI extend further still. The rollout of ChatGPT, Bard and other large language models has sparked concerns about the integrity of the education system.
On employment, while some see AI as a means of boosting productivity, others, including the TUC, are understandably nervous about the impact on jobs. Octopus Energy claims that its AI-based customer service system does the work of around 250 people, so the threats are apparent.
These debates have become more pressing in recent months, with warnings from some of the field’s greatest minds that AI is developing at such a pace that its downsides may become unmanageable. The Government have been slow to wake up to the dangers of AI; their strategy did not, in our view, sufficiently address the risks that new technologies bring, and the Prime Minister has had to change tack in recent months. Which way will he go? Where will he end up?
As noble Lords have said, it is risk versus innovation. We need to assess and ensure that we have quality regulation. It is useful that we have health and safety processes, but they alone will not provide the breadth of protection that we need and that consumers and workers alike require. We need to adopt the precautionary principle.
What sort of regulatory framework does the Minister see for the future? The Blair/Hague report set out the parameters of the debate, but where will the Government settle? That has been one of the key questions focused on in this afternoon’s debate.
While we welcome the Prime Minister’s desire to discuss these matters on the international stage, we know that he is not so keen to lead on issues such as climate change, and the UK seems to have taken a step back on that and other issues. It is clear that very serious conversations are needed in the weeks, months and years ahead—discussions with the tech sector, the police, security forces and our key international partners.f
AI will be key to solving some of the most pressing challenges faced by society, but we must ensure that there are appropriate guardrails in place to stop it being exploited in ways that will cause more harm than good. I know the Minister is an AI enthusiast and we do not wish to change that, but we hope he can demonstrate in his response that the Government are fully informed and ready to act.
The benefits of AI are undeniable, but so are the risks. As Members of your Lordships’ House, it is incumbent on us to gain a thorough understanding of AI technology and all its implications. By doing so, we can effectively address the challenges it presents and leverage its potential to the fullest for the betterment of our society. We need to collaborate, engage in research and encourage dialogue with experts, academics and industry leaders. By harnessing knowledge and wisdom, we can navigate the complex landscape of AI development and regulation and, I hope, ensure a future where AI serves as a powerful force for good while safeguarding the interests of all citizens.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
I join all noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for tabling such an important debate on how we establish the right guardrails for AI—surely, as many noble Lords have said, one of the most pressing issues of our time. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this so persuasively and impactfully; it has been a debate of the highest quality and I am delighted to take part in it. A great many important points have been raised. I will do my best to address them all and to associate noble Lords with the points they have raised. If I inadvertently neglect to do either, that is by no means on purpose and I hope noble Lords will write to me. I am very keen to continue the conversation wherever possible.
As many have observed, AI is here right now, underpinning ever more digital services, such as public transport apps, and innovations on the horizon, from medical breakthroughs to driverless cars. There are huge opportunities to drive productivity and prosperity across the economy, with some analysts predicting a tripling of growth for economies that make the most of this transformational technology.
However, with rapid advances in AI technologies come accelerated and altogether new risks, from the amplification of unfair biases in data to new risks that may emerge in the made-up answers that AI chatbots produce when there are gaps in training data. Potential risks may be difficult to quantify and measure, as mentioned by many today, such as the possibility of super-intelligence putting humanity in danger. Clearly, these risks need to be carefully considered and, where appropriate, addressed by the Government.
As stated in the AI regulation White Paper, unless our regulatory approach addresses the significant risks caused or amplified by AI, the public will not trust the technology and we will fail to maximise the opportunities it presents. To drive trust in AI, it is critical to establish the right guardrails. The principles at the heart of our regulatory framework articulate what responsible, safe and reliable AI innovation should look like.
This work is supported by the Government’s commitment to tools for trustworthy AI, including technical standards and assurance techniques. These important tools will ensure that safety, trust and security are at the heart of AI products and services, while boosting international interoperability on AI governance, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Initiatives such as the AI Standards Hub and a portfolio of AI assurance techniques support this work.
The principles will be complemented by our work to strengthen the evidence base on trustworthy AI, as noted by the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord St John. Building safe and reliable AI systems is a difficult technical challenge, on which much excellent research is being conducted. To answer the point on compute from the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Watson, the Government have earmarked £900 million for exascale compute and AI research resource as of March this year. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, that data access is critical for the UK’s scientific leadership and competitiveness. The National Data Strategy set out a pro-growth approach with data availability and confidence in responsible use at its heart.
I say to my noble friend Lord Holmes that, while synthetic data can be a tool to address some issues of bias, there are additional dangers in training models on data that is computer-generated rather than drawn from the real world. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, this Government have invested significant amounts in AI since 2014—for the better part of 10 years; some £2.5 billion, in addition to the £900 million earmarked for exascale compute that I have mentioned, in specific R&D projects on trustworthy AI, including a further £31 million UKRI research grant into responsible and trustworthy AI this year.
The Foundation Model Taskforce will provide further critical insights into this question. We have announced £100 million of initial funding for the Foundation Model Taskforce and Ian Hogarth, as its chair—to address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Browne—will report directly to the Prime Minister and the Technology Secretary. Linked to this, I thank my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston for raising the Communications and Digital Committee’s inquiry into large language models, which she will chair. This is an important issue, and my department will respond to the inquiry.
As the Prime Minister has made clear, we are taking action to establish the right guardrails for AI. The AI regulation White Paper, published this March, set out our proportionate, outcomes-focused and adaptable regulatory framework—important characteristics noted by many noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, noted, our approach is designed to adapt as this fast-moving technology develops and respond quickly as risks emerge or escalate. We will ensure that there are protections for the public without holding businesses back from using AI technology to deliver stronger economic growth, better jobs and bold new discoveries that radically improve people’s lives.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and my noble friend Lord Holmes raised points about ethics and accountability. Our approach is underpinned by a set of values-based principles, aligned with the OECD and reflecting the ethical use of AI through concepts such as fairness, transparency and accountability. To reassure the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, we are accelerating our work to establish the central functions proposed in the White Paper, including horizon-scanning and risk assessment. These central functions will allow the Government to identify, monitor and respond to AI risks in a rigorous way—including existential risks, as raised by my noble friend Lord Fairfax, and biosecurity risks, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.
We recognise the importance of regulator upskilling and co-ordination, as noted by several noble Lords. Our central functions will support existing regulators to apply the principles, using their sectoral expertise, and our regulatory sandbox will help build best practice.
I thank noble Lords for their emphasis on stakeholder inclusion. We made it clear in the White Paper that we are taking a collaborative approach and are already putting this into practice. For example, to answer the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, I am pleased that the White Paper sets out plans to create an education and awareness function to make sure that a wide range of groups are empowered and encouraged to engage with the regulatory framework.
In addition to meetings with the major AI developers—the multinational conglomerates noted by the noble Lord, Lord Rees—the Prime Minister, the Technology Secretary and I have met British-based AI start-ups and scale-ups. We heard from more than 300 people at round tables and workshops organised as part of our recent consultation on the White Paper, including civil society organisations and trade unions that I was fortunate enough to speak with personally. More than 400 stakeholders have sent us written evidence. To reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, we also continue to collaborate with our colleagues across government, including the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, which leads the Government’s work to enable trustworthy innovation, using data and AI to earn public trust.
It is important to note that the proposals put forward in the White Paper work in tandem with legislation currently going through Parliament, such as the Online Safety Bill and the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. We were clear that the AI regulation White Paper is a first step in addressing the risks and opportunities presented by AI. We will review and adapt our approach in response to the fast pace of this technology. We are unafraid to take further steps if needed to ensure safe and responsible AI innovation.
As we have heard in this debate, the issue of copyright protection and how it applies to training materials and outputs from generative AI is an important issue to get right. To the several noble Lords who asked for the Government’s view on copying works in order to extract data in relation to copyright law, I can confirm this Government’s position that, under existing law, copying works in order to extract data from them will infringe copyright, unless copying is permitted under a licence or exception. The legal question of exactly what is permitted under existing copyright exceptions is the subject of ongoing litigation on whose details I will not comment.
To respond to my noble friend Lady Stowell and the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Clement-Jones, we believe that the involvement of both the AI and creative sectors in the discussions the IPO is currently facilitating will help with the creation of a balanced and pragmatic code of practice that will enable both sectors to grow in partnership.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised the question of AI inventions. The Government have committed to keep this area under review. As noble Lords may be aware, this issue is currently being considered in the DABUS case, and we are closely monitoring that litigation.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, raised the important issue of the impact of AI on the labour market. I note that AI has the potential to be a net creator of jobs. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2023 found that, while 25% of organisations expect AI to lead to job losses, 50% expect it to create job growth. However, even with such job growth, we can anticipate disruption—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and others.
Many of you asked whether our postgraduate AI conversion courses and scholarship will expand the AI workforce. We are working with partners to develop research to help employees understand what skills they need to use AI effectively. The Department for Work and Pensions’ job-matching pilot is assessing how new technologies like AI might support jobseekers.
To address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, on workplace surveillance, the Government recognise that the deployment of technologies in a workplace context involves consideration of a wide range of regulatory frameworks—not just data protection law but also human rights law, legal frameworks relating to health and safety and, most importantly, employment law. We outline a commitment to contestability and redress in our White Paper principles: where AI might challenge someone’s rights in the workplace, the UK has a strong system of legislation and enforcement of these protections.
In response to the concerns about AI’s impact on journalism, raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, I met with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport last week. She has held a number of meetings with the sector and plans to convene round tables with media stakeholders on this issue.
To address the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, companies subject to the Online Safety Bill’s safety duties must take action against illegal content online, including illegal misinformation and disinformation produced by AI. I also note that the Online Safety Bill will regulate generative AI content on services that allow user interaction, including using AI chatbots to radicalise others, especially young people. The strongest protections in the Bill are for children: platforms will have to take comprehensive measures to protect them from harm.
The Government are, of course, very aware of concerns around the adoption of AI in the military, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton. We are determined to adopt AI safely and responsibly, because no other approach would be in line with the values of the British public. It is clear that the UK and our allies must adopt AI with pace and purpose to maintain the UK’s competitive advantage, as set out in the Ministry of Defence’s Defence Artificial Intelligence Strategy.
On the work the UK is doing with our international partners, the UK’s global leadership on AI has a long precedent. To reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, the UK is already consistently ranked in the top three countries for AI across a number of metrics. I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, that the UK already plays an important role in international fora, including the G7’s Hiroshima AI Process, the Council of Europe, the OECD, UNESCO and the G20, as well as through being a founding member of the Global Partnership on AI. Our leadership is recognised internationally, with President Biden commending the Prime Minister’s ambition to make the UK the home of AI safety. Demonstrating our leadership, on 18 July the Foreign Secretary chaired the first ever UN Security Council briefing on AI, calling on the world to come together to address the global opportunities and challenges of AI, particularly in relation to peace and security.
To reassure my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, on the importance of assessing AI opportunities and risks with our international partners, it is clear to this Government that the governance of AI is a subject of global importance. As such, it requires global co-operation. That is why the UK will host the first major global summit on AI safety this year. Some noble Lords have questioned the UK’s convening power internationally. The summit will bring together key countries, as well as leading tech companies and researchers, to drive targeted, rapid international action to guarantee safety and security at the frontier of this technology.
To bring this to a close, AI has rapidly advanced in under a decade and we anticipate further rapid leaps. These advances bring great opportunities, from improving diagnostics in healthcare to tackling climate change. However, they also bring serious challenges, such as the threat of fraud and disinformation created by deepfakes. We note the stark warnings from AI pioneers —however uncertain they may be—about artificial general intelligence and AI biosecurity risks.
The UK already has a reputation as a global leader on AI as a result of our thriving AI ecosystem, our world-class institutions and AI research base and our respected rule of law. Through our work to establish the rules that govern AI and create the mechanisms that enable the adaptation of those rules, the Foundation Model Taskforce and the forthcoming summit on AI safety, we will lead the debate on safe and responsible AI innovation. We will unlock the extraordinary benefits of this landmark technology while protecting our society and keeping the public safe. I thank all noble Lords for today’s really important debate—the insights will help guide our next steps on this critical agenda.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, and thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a most illuminating debate. The debate has achieved exactly what I hoped it would: in no other organisation would we get such a diverse range of knowledge and expertise applied to this question, as the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, said. We have touched on: ethics; the effects on society across a whole range of areas including business, healthcare and defence; risks; and regulation, where the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, reminded us that regulation can be key to stimulating innovation and not just a barrier to innovation.
As we went through the debate and the subject of risks came up—particularly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax—I was reminded of something my eight year-old child said to me on the subject of AI. After a short discussion we had on the current state of play—the positives and negatives—he said, “We should stop inventing it, Daddy. I think we would be all right”. I think that, sometimes, we should listen to the wisdom of our children and reflect upon it.
Another key aspect was brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Rees, and others, on international collaboration and the need for an enforceable regulatory system with global range. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, noted, we are presently stuck in something of a prisoner’s dilemma between nations. How do we break that down and find common interests between nations to resolve that? I would go back to the 1955 “Russell-Einstein Manifesto”. In the early days of the nuclear age, when we were thinking about the existential risks of nuclear weapons, a key quote from that manifesto which brought together scientists and policymakers to solve that issue was:
“Remember your humanity, and forget the rest”.
I look forward to the autumn conference the Government have organised. I also look forward to the King’s Speech, where I hope to see an AI Bill or at least some concrete steps forward on the topics discussed today. Regardless, going forward, we need to see a much greater input from Parliament on these questions.
Housing Crisis: Rural and Coastal Communities
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
To ask His Majesty’s Government what their plans are to address the housing crisis in rural and coastal communities.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, as bishop with pastoral care of one of the largest rural dioceses in England that boasts not one but two coastlines, I have become concerned about the escalating housing crisis in rural and coastal communities. If this is the true situation in Devon, I suspect it will be true for other parts of England, which is why I am encouraged by the number of colleagues from across the House who are speaking today. My hope is that we can distil wisdom that will reshape the housing policies of His Majesty’s Government.
We are all familiar with the problems of affordability caused by the chronic housing shortage that is having a disproportionate impact on people with low incomes. The Government, as they have admitted today, are falling woefully short of their own homebuilding target and, as a result, people are suffering, because they have nowhere to call home. Their health is diminished and community spirit is being eroded. In coastal and rural areas, particularly in tourist hotspots, the situation is compounded by second home ownership, holiday rentals and Airbnb lettings.
In Devon and Cornwall, there is a huge gap between properties listed for short-term holiday lets and long-term rentals. Last year, ITV highlighted the fact that in the whole of Devon, there were only 936 properties to rent, compared with more than 15,700 holiday lets—16 times as many. Revisiting the same data ITV used last year, the ratio has now risen to 22 times that number, with available rental properties having slumped to under 700. The situation in Cornwall, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will confirm, is even worse, with a staggering ratio of over 90 times as many holiday lets. Only 208 rental properties are listed, compared with more than 19,000 holiday lets.
Too often, local people are forced out of the areas where their families have lived for generations, fracturing their support networks, to the detriment of individuals, families and whole communities. Tourism is an important industry. No one begrudges those who have the privilege of choice in enjoying the countryside and our fabulous coastline—but without systemic change, including regulating the Airbnb industry, our rural and coastal communities will be hollowed out. In my diocese, the impact of second home ownership in Salcombe, for example, has meant that there are now so few locals resident in the community that they are struggling to recruit volunteers for the lifeboat crew.
A report published jointly this month by the South-West Social Mobility Commission and the University of Exeter highlights how the housing crisis, in combination with poor public transport, is contributing to low educational attainment across the region. Transport investment in the region stands at £308 per head of the population, compared with the national average of £474. Inadequate public transport disadvantages poorer residents and young people who wish to engage in educational and apprenticeship opportunities. In combination, this exacerbates the cycle of deprivation and stifles aspiration.
The human and societal cost of the housing crisis is accelerating. Employers struggle to recruit for the hospitality and retail industries. Healthcare providers and community services suffer shortages because key workers cannot afford to live in rural and coastal areas. In his 2021 report, the Chief Medical Officer for England noted the high proportion of the worst health and well-being outcomes for individuals that are concentrated in coastal communities, and access to quality affordable housing is a contributory factor.
The demand for social housing in rural areas is growing at 10 times the rate of that in towns and cities. In Devon, with the current rate of net additions to the affordable housing stock, even if housing waiting lists closed tomorrow, it would still take over 32 years to clear the backlog. A report for the universities of Kent and Southampton notes the dramatic rise of homelessness in rural areas, with a 24% increase in rough sleeping in the last year alone. Rural and coastal areas often fall through the cracks in our national data gathering, but research by the Rural Services Network shows that, if our rural communities were aggregated into one region, its need for levelling up would be greater than any other region in the United Kingdom. It is why the current housing crisis merits action, not just sympathy.
The report of the Archbishops’ commission on housing entitled Coming Home points out that housing is not just a matter of putting a roof over a person’s head. It is about creating homes in communities where people can live with dignity and feel secure. It is about enabling the diverse communities that make up our United Kingdom to thrive and have a real community spirit, and this is where I believe the Church has a significant part to play. Sadly, my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who chaired the Archbishops’ commission on housing and who intended to speak this afternoon, is unable to be here because of a family bereavement. I know she would join me in welcoming the various practical responses that are being developed to address the current crisis, whether by landowners, local authorities or charities, including by the Church of England in the use of its land assets to promote truly affordable homes.
In Bracebridge Heath in Lincolnshire, to give one example, the Church commissioners have just obtained planning permission for 1,000 new homes, of which 20% will be affordable. The plans include infrastructure that will enable people to live in a community with dignity, and facilities to promote their well-being. All this will be integrated into a town of some 5,800 people. Things happen when government, landowners and communities come together in partnership to promote the common good.
Rural exception sites open up new opportunities for affordable housing, often with community land trusts being instrumental in enabling tight-knit rural communities to be integrated into decision-making about housing developments. Research shows that policies are not always applied consistently across local authorities. There are challenges with the current planning system to make agreement fruitful for all parties. The complexity of the situation means that we cannot afford to tackle this crisis piecemeal. This is why the Rural Coalition has called on the Government to create
“a cross-departmental strategy for rural England, setting out a vision and policy framework to deliver sustainable growth for its communities and businesses, and encompassing farming and environmental concerns”.
In welcoming the noble Baroness to her new position —I congratulate her on her appointment and her debut at the Dispatch Box this afternoon—I ask whether she will commit to going back to her department and colleagues to press for such a comprehensive rural strategy.
I note with approval the renewed commitment of the Prime Minister today to achieve the Government’s housing target by the end of 2024. However, I regret that in the statement by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the focus is on cities and, once again, there is no recognition of the scale of the housing crisis in rural and coastal communities.
It is a privilege to live in one of the most beautiful counties of England. Heaven is Devon—but the picture-postcard view of rural life is only half the story. This housing crisis is not restricted to a few beauty spots, and it is not something that the market can solve by itself, as some people believe. The absence of housing supply, the diversity of people’s needs and the immense pressure in the system mean that neither the market nor any single organisation or individual can make the difference that we all long for.
Without partnership and systemic change, the spiral of deprivation will become more acute. The Government need to recognise the scale of the problem. We need cross-departmental working and cross-party agreement to forge a coherent long-term strategy that will secure good housing and the flourishing of our rural and coastal communities. I hope that such a coalition of good will will begin here and now, today.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I have lost count of the number of times we have debated the housing crisis in this House with the same conclusion: we are not building enough homes, particularly affordable and social homes. The Government have ambitions to do more, but their policies have only tinkered with the problem. We have a shortfall of 4 million homes. I am grateful to the National Housing Federation for its briefing for this debate, which is clear that the number of homes built each year is not enough to reduce this backlog or to meet demand in the future.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter so powerfully outlined, the problem is particularly acute in rural and coastal areas. Demand for social homes in rural areas has grown by nearly a third in the past three years. Young people and those on low incomes cannot find anywhere they can afford; families are split up; homelessness is rising; people leave, so jobs cannot be filled; and tourism, often the key economic driver in these areas, is undermined.
DLUHC data, as well as research by the Rural Homelessness Counts Coalition, found a rise of 24% in rural rough sleeping in just one year as the cost of living crisis continues. The NHF has found that the number of rural households on local authority waiting lists in England increased by 31% between 2019 and 2022, far exceeding the increase of 3% in predominantly urban areas. This is an invisible crisis unacknowledged in policy decisions, as the right reverend Prelate has said, but it is in plain sight to those who work and live in these areas.
We all love getting out into the country, exploring England’s green and pleasant land. It all seems bucolic, affluent even, and the real situation of many families and communities is hidden unless we know what it is really like to live there. As Angela Gascoigne of SHAL Housing in rural Somerset has said:
“The rural … myth is strong, so rural poverty and rural homelessness can be unimaginable … The extent of the problems faced by people in rural communities to access homes where they have … grown up and work is truly shocking”.
The right reverend Prelate referred to Homelessness in the Countryside: A Hidden Crisis, an impressive report from the universities of Kent and Southampton, which was commissioned by a coalition of housing and homelessness organisations. It highlights the extent of this growing yet unacknowledged problem and documents vividly through a number of individual voices the extent of the harm being done. What more evidence is needed before this problem is acted on? Does the Minister accept that rural homelessness requires targeted and specific interventions that are different from those in urban areas?
Rural teachers, nurses, and workers in care, hospitality and agriculture cannot afford a home close to their work, but rural communities need them. We need to make sure that people are able to live, work and bring up their children in a quality home that they can afford. Does the Minister agree that building homes where people need them is the key to resolving this?
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I will not follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter on the wider canvas he has painted with such great skill, but I thank him for tabling this debate. My full title is Lord McNally, of Blackpool. I serve in a pro-bono capacity on the national advisory board which advises Blackpool Council and Business in the Community on national and local development policy, and on a special advisory group on housing.
Although Blackpool’s problems, especially those in housing, are deep-rooted, housing has been particularly blighted by a housing benefits system that makes the old boarding houses which were the heart of Blackpool’s earlier seaside prosperity profitable to convert to multi-occupancy. However, in recent years, with closer co-operation between the local authority and government and a broader and longer regeneration strategy for the town being adopted, it has not all been bad news. A number of government departments have contributed to this, as well as the awarding of funds under the levelling-up policy to deliver decent homes.
There has also been a standard enforcement pilot, with an enhanced team of enforcement officers, and a decent homes standard for the private sector, with a “Blackpool standard” for housing which is above the legislative minimum but easy to meet if you are a good landlord. The Blackpool Housing Company—part of the local authority—has brought in 600 units of good-quality affordable stock by buying up old property. It is continuing to build affordable housing with grant support from Homes England.
The key message I took from the right reverend Prelate’s speech and would like to emphasise is that close partnership between local and national government can and does work. New funding and beefed-up measures to improve housing standards to drive out unscrupulous landlords along with plans which see derelict areas transformed and good-quality homes provided will enable Blackpool to respond to the housing and related challenges it faces with a strategy which is both locally determined and long term in its impact. I emphasise that as the lesson.
As has already been referred to by the right reverend Prelate, a cross-government national strategy to improve health and well-being for coastal communities is recommended by Sir Chris Whitty—not least because many of our ageing population will continue to move to the seaside, bringing their health and care problems with them. No longer do you necessarily go to Blackpool just to look for the problems; you can go there now and see some of the solutions.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for initiating this tiny debate and for his excellent speech. I declare my housing and local government interests; in particular, I chair the Devon Housing Commission, which is an initiative of all the local authorities in the county, supported by the University of Exeter, to address Devon’s acute housing problems.
Let me cut to the chase with some suggestions for easing the housing difficulties for rural and coastal areas. First, the Government need to address the loss of properties available for long-term letting in the private sector, particularly in tourist hotspots, where these have been replaced by Airbnb-style short-term lets. To give local authorities the opportunity to curb this loss of homes for local people, the Government’s current proposals for change—a registration scheme by all local authorities that wish to, and for a new planning use class so that consent is needed to convert a property into a short-term let—deserve support.
Secondly, I commend the recent Defra announcement of funding for rural housing enablers, with rural community councils hosting the service, as in Devon. These enablers do a brilliant job, liaising with landowners, parish councils, local planning authorities, housing associations, community land trusts, et cetera, to secure small parcels of land for the development of affordable housing.
Thirdly, rural areas have their secret weapon of rural exception sites, which I recommend planners should utilise to the full. This takes away the unwinnable competition for land by agreeing to development exclusively because it will serve local needs. Witness the scheme in the little village of Powerstock, Dorset, where a community land trust and an enlightened landowner, in partnership with Hastoe Housing Association, has built eight delightful, affordable, sustainable homes for local people, replenishing the local primary school and rejuvenating the local community.
There are more solutions here: incentives for landowners to part with suitable sites; an increase to a fairer level of government funding for rural social housing from Homes England; support for neighbourhood plans, which can reconcile local communities to support new development; and, for some coastal communities such as Blackpool, the tough enforcement of decent standard in the PRS, all within an overall strategy for housing in rural and coastal areas.
While problems might appear to be intractable and are certainly in danger of getting worse if action is not taken, there are opportunities here that can make a real difference. There are now some great examples of inspiring success. Let us have lots more.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this important debate. The starting premise for a debate on rural and coastal homes is that everyone deserves a quality home they can afford that meets the needs of themselves and their families.
The issue the Question highlights is not about attacking those who choose a staycation in a holiday let; it is about what can be done to ensure the housing crisis in rural and coastal areas is recognised and addressed by government. Some 10.3 million people live in coastal communities. From small villages to larger towns, properties remain out of reach financially for those working in roles supporting the community; nurses, police officers, social workers and teachers simply cannot afford decent homes. Public services and the tourist and service industries are struggling to recruit as a result. Social housing waiting lists are, as has been noted already, growing much more quickly in rural than urban areas. What are the Government doing proactively to address the shortage of homes of all types of tenure in coastal areas? What are the Government doing to ensure people can afford homes, not least given the comparative low incomes in many rural and coastal communities?
It is welcome that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill recognises the second home issue, by bringing down the time that qualifies a house for an empty home tax premium from two years to one, and allowing for doubling council tax when second homes are not being let—but we can do more. Wales are Scotland are running empty homes programmes. In England, 120 councils take part in National Empty Homes Week, promoted by Action on Empty Homes.
Noble Lords may find of interest the Council for the Protection of Rural England project in Bridport, Dorset, where a co-housing project will provide 53 affordable homes for sale and rent, including energy-efficient measures and nature-friendly features. This project has taken 13 years to develop. What more will the Government do to make similar projects happen more quickly?
My final point is that rural and coastal communities also need to be fit for the future in the context of climate change. However, they currently receive only 1p out of every pound spent by the Government on energy efficiency. Will the Minister look into how the Government could redress this imbalance?
In conclusion, the Government have options available to help those from, or working in, rural and coastal areas. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government intend to do to address the housing crisis that too many individuals and families face.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Wessex Investors and Anchorwood Developments.
On the evenings that I have to get back to Cornwall—the train journey to St Austell from Paddington is about four-and-a-half hours—I cannot always get back, so I have to drive to Exeter, in the right reverend Prelate’s diocese; an excellent city. To get there, I have to drive up the Bodmin bypass. For as many years as I can remember—certainly for the last five—there has been a big sign on the Bodmin bypass saying: “NHS: Apply for jobs in Cornwall. We’re here, we want people”. There is a reason that sign has been there for so long. What better place could you work in the National Health Service than in Devon or Cornwall? There is no better place, and yet those vacancies are not filled. The reason is that people come down, they have their interviews, they are inspired and then they visit an estate agent—and that is the end of the story. That is why there are those vacancies, because house prices in that part of the country are significantly higher than the national average.
For people who live there, the problem is even greater. The ratio in Cornwall of salary to house prices is 11 times, whereas nationally it is nine, and in many other places it will obviously be a lot less than that. Outside of London, the Isles of Scilly has the highest level of empty and second homes as a proportion of all dwellings. That is the situation there.
What do we have today? When I was driving up that Bodmin bypass I heard that there had been a government announcement from the Levelling Up Secretary. What was it? They are going to solve the housing crisis by investing and building in cities—full stop. I waited to hear the rest of the announcement, but it was not there; there was nothing at all about rural communities. That is deeply depressing and misunderstands—if I am kind—the equation between urban and rural areas. I suggest it is probably more political than based in reality.
I was on the Economic Affairs Committee of this House a few years ago and we did a study into housing. One thing that struck me was a graph. During the Conservative Government of Margaret Thatcher, when public housing stopped, the line on the graph came down immediately and never went up again. The Government have to liberate local authorities to bring back those houses, particularly in rural communities. If we did that, I believe we could start to solve this crisis—and maybe save some of the £15 billion we spend on housing benefit.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, housing for this and the next generation is the biggest problem facing rural communities. The problem has been bad for decades but it is getting worse. In Cornwall now, the price of the average home is 12 times the average wage; people cannot possibly get a mortgage on that basis. Everywhere, so-called affordable homes are not affordable to most rural workers. Furthermore, there are no houses to let. Rural council houses were the first to go under right to buy. As others have said, the private let sector has now found that Airbnb et cetera is more rewarding than long-term ASTs.
Private landlords are also threatened by everything from costly energy efficiency rules to threats of not being able to get their property back if they need it. So they are motivated to sell, and thus take another rural home off the market because it is a given that no local will be able to afford it. In Cornwall now, no business—including the NHS, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, just said—can get staff because there is absolutely nowhere for them to live. This is now not only a social problem but an economic one.
What is the answer? For too many decades the standard government answer—from all Governments—has been to build more houses for sale. They have set targets that have never been reached, often because they themselves undermined the ability of the planning system and the developers to deliver. In my view, we need a whole new approach. Never mind about home ownership, just help every rural local authority to build their own houses, preferably on their own land to make them cheaper; after all, most county councils own large swathes of land in one context or another. Then, encourage them to let these houses to local tenants. Hey, they could even call them council houses—what a wonderful new idea.
Of course, the right to buy will have to be delegated down to the local authority—it is probably too much of a political gamble to remove it altogether—and the local authority can then leave the rules as they are or extend the minimum term of pre-purchase occupation to, say, 10 years or more. After all, few mortgage holders own their own homes until at least 15 years after they have moved in. However, the most important bit about the right to buy is that the money received absolutely must remain with the local authority housing department so that it can continue to provide more houses for local people. I believe that any Government providing such a solution will sweep the rural polls.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, like other speakers, I thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing this debate. I think I agree with everything that has been said so far, particularly with the preceding remarks about the important role of council housing.
I want to add something about rural district councils. They are long gone but they should be our heroes today, for they showed us what needs to be done. However, they have been betrayed. Their housing legacy is there in many or most of our villages. Little remarked and too often forgotten, often set in green spaces, semi-detached or short terraces, good-sized front and back gardens: three-bedroom family homes. Typically simple in design, they provide just the sort of house in which people would like to live—joyous family homes. They are distinct and a distinctive part of rural life, and they were created by and for local people, often replacing what could have been described only as hovels. It was the rural districts that achieved this at a time when local government was more truly local.
The betrayal to which I refer comes of course from the destructive impact of right to buy, or, more specifically, the way it was implemented, with the deliberate intention, along with other measures, of destroying council housing on ideological grounds. The result has been that those houses, built by the community, were removed from the social sector with no replacement, as has been explained. Once sold off, they are now, whether owned or rented, usually out of reach of local people in need of social housing. Instead, too often, they are second homes, or homes for retirement or short-term lets.
None of these things is wrong in itself but in excess, as previous speakers have explained, they have destroyed local communities. My question for the Minister is how she can justify that lack—that loss—of good-quality social housing when we know what works. Local government did it between the wars and in the 1950s and 1960s; it should do it now.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for calling this important debate, which is obviously crucial to Devon. Given Bishop Robert’s impending retirement, I also take this opportunity to record in Hansard my immense gratitude for his tireless spiritual and practical service to our diocese and the wider county since 2014. The Bishops of Exeter and the Earls of Devon have not always seen eye to eye—famously, we fell out over fish in the 13th century—but I hope we have gone some way to repairing that schism. The right reverend Prelate may not have realised the significance of buying me a fish lunch today.
With typically astute timing, the right reverend Prelate’s debate falls on the day that the Conservative Government have announced that the housing crisis that they have overseen for the last decade will be resolved by a focus on building more urban homes, as we have heard, leaving rural and coastal economies yet further to wither and perish. I worry that this is a knee-jerk reaction to last week’s by-election losses and a shameless attempt to retain the nimby vote by once more playing politics with peoples’ homes.
I note my interests as a resident and owner of property in rural and coastal Devon; I am also a member of the Devon Housing Commission, recently convened under the eminent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Best. The commission has only just begun its work so this debate comes too early to report any findings, but I will speak to the issues we face and I promise to return to offer and share some conclusions.
As we have heard, the chief challenge is the lack of affordable and suitable housing for local residents—those of modest means, raised, living and working in rural and coastal areas, young people leaving college, and empty-nesters seeking to downsize. Blame is deservedly laid at the feet of the short-term rental market and second homes, which push up prices and remove hundreds of thousands of properties from the local housing stock. Some 10% of homes in the South Hams are unavailable due to being second homes or empty; in north Devon, there was a 67% decrease in the number of private rental properties between 2019 and 2021; and every local authority in Devon has affordability ratios greater than the national average, other than Plymouth.
I am sure the Minister will refer us to the levelling-up Bill, but there are plenty of other factors that contribute. Local councils struggle to deliver housing of the scale and type required. It is easier for councils, and less resource intensive, to deliver housing supply in anonymous suburban blocks on the edge of large towns and cities, not where it is needed in small market towns and villages.
Biodiversity net gain will only add to the challenge of building in rural and coastal communities; despite its excellent intentions, BNG will undoubtedly slow development in communities blessed with biodiversity. Removing no-fault evictions, as we have heard, will ultimately decrease the relative attractiveness of long-term tenancies, and EPC regulations are a blunt instrument that is punitive to rural and coastal rental stock. I look forward to hearing how the Minister will address these issues.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the right reverend Prelate, both for calling this timely debate and for his speech. As one who lives in the diocese of Exeter, I endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said about the right reverend Prelate as the Bishop of Exeter. I am equally sad that he is retiring. I want to make just one point. There is a feeling in Devon that the Government rather overlook the West Country, placing understandable emphasis on the north of England. Can the Minister say whether the Government will take the same interest in other rural areas as well as those in the north, including the West Country?
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate, which has highlighted our housing crisis, not least in affordable homes. Frankly, it is getting worse. Housing benefits now cover only the cheapest 18% of private rentals, housebuilding starts fell by 12% at the start of the year, and half of all our councils built no council houses last year. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, they need more help and more freedoms. Yet, while hardly mentioned in today’s housing statement, the crisis is particularly bad in rural and coastal areas, where house prices and rents are higher than in urban areas, while incomes are lower. It is increasingly hard for people of working age to live and work in rural and coastal areas, with the inevitable impact on their local economies.
As we have heard, there are three principal causes: too few genuinely affordable homes being built; second homes taking over full-time residential homes; and—the most rapidly increasing problem—short-term lets, or STLs, taking over the long-term privately rented sector.
I live in Suffolk, close to the popular seaside town of Southwold. Of its 1,400 properties, only 500 have full-time residents, 500 are second homes, and 400 are STLs. Therefore two-thirds are not permanently lived in. House prices and long-term rents have risen steeply, leading to staff shortages. Many bars, restaurants and hotels now have staff vacancies, and it is feared, as the right reverend Prelate said in respect of our rural and coastal communities more generally, that Southwold will soon be hollowed out.
In Committee on the levelling-up Bill, the Government promised action on STLs. Consultation has taken place on measures to enable councils to limit them, which I welcome. However, they do nothing to help the problems caused by many of the 257,000 second homes not used as STLs—“second homes for council tax purposes”, as they are known. Neighbourhood plans and new powers for councils to increase council tax on second homes will help but are insufficient.
Can the Minister explain why the Government, having belatedly agreed to address the STL problem, are failing to do the same for the second home problem? What is being done to resolve the failed attempt to close the tax loophole whereby second home owners avoided paying either council tax or business rates? Since Michael Gove introduced the so-called tough new measures, an extra 12,000 second homes have been added to the business rates list, leading the Telegraph recently to report:
“Holiday let council tax crackdown backfires—costing local authorities millions”.
Can the Minister also say what further steps will be taken to address this problem?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, when we spoke earlier in the Chamber, I failed to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, to her place, and correct that now and welcome her to the Dispatch Box and her new role. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for initiating this very important debate and all noble Lords who have spoken.
I, too, regret the huge black hole in the Secretary of State’s statement today about housing that did not anywhere touch on rural and coastal housing. Councillors see the catastrophic failures in government housing policy on a day-to-day basis, as we deal with the front line of homelessness, lack of availability of social-rented or affordable private rented homes and a housing market that is incredibly skewed, especially in rural and coastal areas, to investors looking for second homes or holiday homes to let out for profit, pushing prices right out of the reach of local people. The right reverend Prelate gave some startling figures for Devon, and I am sure they are true for other areas. I really welcome the Archbishop’s commission’s report, which was thorough and got right to the point of the problem.
My noble friend Lady Warwick set out the context of the overall housing crisis in which this rural housing dilemma sits. It is heartbreaking for people who live in rural and coastal areas to see them increasingly hollowed out as they lose their shops, pubs, schools and medical centres because of the transient nature of a population much of which is there for only part of the year, with high house prices meaning that local workers just cannot afford to live there, as so clearly illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in respect of Cornwall.
The APPG on Coastal Communities provided clear evidence in its report of 2022 to show that rural and coastal areas were hardest hit by the global financial crisis of 2008 and slowest to recover, with many still not having recovered when the pandemic arrived. Of course, the nature of economies in rural and coastal areas has a fundamental impact on the ability of local residents to afford the housing they need, and it impacts on investment in existing housing too, with rural and coastal areas, as pointed out by the LGA, likely to be older and in poorer condition. How will the Minister ensure that new social housing regulations reach rural areas too?
The National Housing Federation, together with the Rural Housing Alliance, has produced an excellent rural housing five-star plan, to which the right reverend Prelate referred. It outlines a very clear strategy for each of the next five years. It calls for Homes England to have a specific target for the delivery of rural homes. We have learned that Homes England, the Government’s own agency, has posted losses of £148.3 million arising from bad loans in 2022-23, and in the year to 31 March, there was another £230 million of bad loans, up from £51 million two years ago. Will those losses impact on Homes England’s ability to deliver more housing altogether, but particularly in rural areas?
Affordable, sustainable housing should be a right, wherever you live in the UK. If we continue to ignore its vital importance to our rural and coastal areas, they will continue to hollow out, and the vital place that rural and coastal communities have in our culture will be diminished. I look forward to hearing the comments from the Minister.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I am pleased to respond to it, not least because I grew up in, and my family are still part of, a rural coastal community in Ceredigion, west Wales, and I recognise many of the issues raised by your Lordships in today’s debate.
In particular, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for bringing forward this important subject. I am aware that he met my ministerial colleague, my noble friend Lord Benyon, alongside other noble and right reverend Prelates, where the housing challenges that rural and coastal communities face were discussed, and I am grateful to have this chance to talk to them directly.
This Government fully appreciate the importance of delivering more of the right homes in the right places for people to buy and rent. That is right at the centre of our mission to level up growth, opportunity and pride throughout the United Kingdom. Your Lordships will have heard from the Secretary of State for Housing earlier today the detail on our long-term plan for housing. That commitment very much includes affordable, attractive, greener housing for rural and coastal communities. However, we recognise that there are bespoke challenges that those communities face, as outlined in today’s contributions. They are complex and multilayered by virtue of the communities’ more remote locations and range from limited availability of affordable homes to barriers to home ownership when up against the opportunities provided in more urban areas
People should not be priced out of the places where they grew up and where they have family, friends and livelihoods. Local businesses should not have to rely solely on a local workforce in order to be able to expand, grow and serve their customers. Of course, their growth will make their communities stronger and more sustainable. That is why we are working tirelessly in our steadfast commitment to increase the supply of affordable homes, which build those strong, sustainable communities, while preserving and enhancing the unique character and beauty of our cherished countryside and coastlines.
As many of your Lordships have raised, housing supply is a critical issue, including increasing the supply stock. We are making good progress towards this. We are on track to deliver our target of 1 million homes in this Parliament—and we already have almost 70% of them on their way. We remain committed to our ambition to deliver 300,000 new homes a year across England, including in rural and coastal areas. In the last year, 2021-22, over 232,000 homes were delivered in England. Of relevance to this debate, more than 60,000 of them were in rural areas. This feeds into the 2.2 million homes-plus that have been delivered since 2010, with nearly a quarter of a million being affordable homes in rural areas.
We are doing this mostly through our £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, delivering homes to buy and rent across England. We are proud of this progress, but we know that much more needs to be done and we must not be complacent about the scale of the challenge. That is why we are not just delivering homes on a larger scale but supporting local communities, particularly in rural areas, to make the most of smaller sites through the rural exception sites policy. This aims to encourage small affordable housing developments in rural spots where they would not normally be permitted.
As numerous noble Lords have raised, the issue of second homes and short lets is highly relevant. We are therefore acting to empower rural and coastal communities, which have high numbers of second homes and short-term lets. We completely appreciate how much of a factor these types of homes are for coastal and rural communities. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, among other noble Lords, raised those issues. They have highlighted how much of a negative influence—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have a unique opportunity in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to bring some of these measures forward. Do the Government intend them to come forward in that Bill?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I will come to my levelling up contribution shortly, and if it has not satisfied the noble Baroness at that point, I will happily come back in writing to her.
With regard to those communities in Devon, particularly when it comes to social housing supply, please know that we have listened and are taking everything into consideration as we look to level up prosperity and opportunity, as well as bolster community cohesion. We recognise that rural areas have more limited affordable stock than other places. As well as the affordable homes programme, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has announced £2.5 million of funding to provide a network of rural housing enablers across England, which will help to identify development opportunities and secure the support of local communities. Homes in rural protection areas are also exempt from both the right to acquire and the right to shared ownership schemes.
We are therefore introducing measures to strike the right balance between boosting local tourist economies and the availability of affordable homes for local people, giving councils the power to apply a council tax premium of up to 100% on second homes through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and introducing higher rates of stamp duty for second properties and new measures to close the tax loopholes on holiday lets—alluded to by a noble Lord—that came into force in April.
With respect to the regulating of holiday lets, we propose to introduce a planning use class for short-term lets and a registration scheme for all such properties. The consultations on these have just closed and we will give an update in due course. Through the Renters (Reform) Bill we will change the way that the short-term lets market interacts with the private rented sector. By abolishing no-fault Section 21 evictions, as well as removing the existing ground (3), landlords will be unable to evict a long-term tenant to convert their home to a holiday let and maximise profit during the peak summer season. We do not think that it is right that landlords can do this and we will end the practice.
Turning to the planning reforms, alongside having enough homes to go around, we want to see them well designed and in keeping with their surroundings—a particular priority for rural and coastal communities. We are proposing planning reforms to create a quicker, modernised planning system that will be to all these communities’ benefit. These are all set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and in a consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework that ran earlier this year. In this, we specifically explored opportunities to unlock small-scale sites as well as strengthening the significant untapped potential of community-led development to meet housing need in rural and coastal areas. We are carefully considering the consultation responses—there were nearly 26,000—and hope that our response will provide some real potential for positive outcomes for our countryside and seasides.
Turning to the infrastructure levy, we launched—
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I apologise for interrupting, but before the Minister moves on, can she explain why the Government are thinking of introducing powers to enable local councils to control STLs but are not thinking of introducing similar powers to help councillors to control the number of second homes that do not become STLs?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I will note back to the comments about the registration scheme for short-term lets, which will capture many of those that are being used for—
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I apologise, as I know that time is very short, but short-term lets is one issue. I have already welcomed what the Government have done. However, there are a quarter of a million second homes and growing that do not get converted into short-term lets and are not covered by the current proposals. What will be done about the growing number of second homes that will not become short-term lets?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I will need to get my noble friend the Minister to respond to the noble Lord in writing on that specific issue.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry to intervene once more on a brief point, before the Minister moves on to infrastructure levy. In relation to the council tax premiums, we are very grateful for the provisions in the levelling-up Bill that introduced them, but how will we make sure that it is the tier of local government that is responsible for delivering housing to which the funds will be generated. The danger is that they will get split between the various tiers of local government and not go where they are needed to provide housing. We could even use the levelling-up Bill to delegate the powers of right-to-buy. Can the Minister think about that as well?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. Not unexpectedly, I will need to pass that on to the Minister concerned. I suspect that during the levelling-up discussions that will be continuing in September, we will probably cover many of those points. I will pass them on to the department.
Turning to the infrastructure levy, we launched a consultation on a vital lever for delivering both affordable homes and essential infrastructure—the new infrastructure levy. It is proposed that the levy be a fixed, non-negotiable charge on developers, to capture more land-value uplift from new development for the benefit of local communities, to reduce delays and to ensure that developers meet their obligations. We also put forward in this consultation the idea of maintaining the approach that local authorities retain the right to seek affordable housing for smaller sites in designated rural areas. This consultation closed last month and we will publish our response once submissions have been properly reviewed.
I will try to cover a few of the questions that have been asked. If I miss any of them, I apologise. I will check Hansard and respond in writing to any of your Lordships’ questions that I miss. On the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, achieving biodiversity net gain for development has been part of planning policy since 2012 but, to ease the transition towards making it mandatory, the Government have extended the transition period for small sites until April 2024. In February, we announced £16.7 million of funding to help local planning authorities to prepare for BNG, in addition to the £4.18 million already distributed the previous year. We have also funded the Planning Advisory Service to support local planning authorities in their preparations. This will also help all those rural communities in their planning.
On the question of whether no-fault evictions will make long-term tenancies less attractive, on the contrary, our plans to ban Section 21 no-fault evictions and remove the existing ground through the Renters (Reform) Bill will stop landlords evicting a long-term tenant just so that they can convert their home into a holiday let for that peak season. On EPC enforcement, which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, we are committed to ensuring that the EPC system works as effectively as possible. We are also aware of some of the issues that he highlighted. The current regulations set the existing minimum standard of EPC E and include a number of exemptions to make sure that the costs and circumstances relating to improvements are proportionate and fair for landlords too.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter asked whether there would be a cross-departmental strategy. We already have cross-governmental working on rural areas. Unleashing Rural Opportunity, published on 6 June, sets out clearly the Government’s commitment to working for rural areas. Rural areas are at the heart of levelling up and Defra is the champion for rural affairs across government, publishing each year its Delivering for Rural England report.
A very large number of noble Lords asked about key workers. In their 2019 manifesto, the Government committed to bringing forward discounted homes for first-time buyers, prioritising local people and key workers. That is exactly what we are doing. Additionally, for first homes, a discount of at least 30% needs to be applied. Crucially, that discount is passed on to future purchasers in perpetuity.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his solutions to many of the issues—it was nice to hear them rather than just all the problems—and for sharing his experience, particularly on things that are working well. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, for her contribution on the empty homes initiative. I agree that this must be a joined-up approach, not just with government but with all local government levels and the private sector working together to deliver these matters as a priority.
The Secretary of State today announced the launch of the consultation on changes to permitted development rights, which will include proposals to give farmers greater freedom to change the use of their buildings to residential or commercial. This includes proposals on new and amended permitted development rights to ensure that such rights are fit for purpose and support further housing delivery. We are seeking views on amending the existing right for the change of use from agricultural buildings to residential use, to deliver more homes and apply to a wider range of rural issues.
With regard to all these questions, as I said, I will return in written form to any that I have not answered. To bring my words to a close—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again very briefly.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
We are running out of time, so I would like to finish my concluding remarks.
To bring my words to a close on this issue, we are absolutely committed to getting Britain building in a way that delivers for our much-loved rural and coastal communities, championing affordability, home ownership, beauty and sustainability. Housing is very much an important part of this, alongside better access to high-quality jobs, efficient infrastructure and a pride in place that drives economic growth in these areas and ultimately ensures the best possible life for all in the UK. It is why we have invested £1.5 billion through the levelling up fund, the UK shared prosperity fund and the rural England prosperity fund in coastal and rural areas to date. This is levelling up; we are working to make it happen, and it is working. We completely understand the challenges for rural and coastal communities when accessing affordable homes, and I hope that everything I have covered today has addressed some, if not all, of noble Lords’ points.
However, there is a lot more that can be done. I look forward to continuing discussions away from the Chamber as we work to nurture and support these communities in our cherished countryside and coastlines.
Climate Change
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Krebs
That this House takes note of the level of preparation by His Majesty’s Government in adapting to the impacts that climate change will have on health, the economy, food security, and the environment.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the advisory board of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit. I am most grateful to the Cross-Benchers who chose this topic for one of our two debates today, and I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has chosen this debate for his maiden speech. I welcome him to the Chamber and very much look forward to hearing his contribution later on.
This debate could not be happening at a more appropriate moment. On the one hand, we are seeing record-breaking heatwaves across the world, in Europe, the US and China. We know with a high degree of confidence that the likelihood of these events has increased already as result of manmade climate change. Professor Fredi Otto of Imperial College said to me last week: “The bottom line is that these events in the US and Europe are not rare today—about one in 10-year events—but would have been extremely rare if it was not for climate change”.
Against this backdrop, last week the Government published their third national adaptation plan—or NAP3 for short—which sets out how the UK will prepare itself for the inevitable impacts of climate change that will result from the greenhouse gases humanity has already pumped into the atmosphere. As we all know, the global response to climate change has two strands: there is the commitment, starting with the Paris Agreement in 2015, to try to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees; at the same time, there is the need to prepare for the inevitability of climate change to which we are already committed, however good we are at cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
This debate is about the second of these two strands: adaptation rather than mitigation. The UK has an excellent process for developing an adaptation plan. The adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change, of which I was the chair between 2009 and 2017, prepares an independent evidence report on the present and future risks to the UK from climate change: the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment evidence report. Based on this risk assessment, the Government then publish a national adaptation plan, or NAP, which aims to set out how the country will respond to the risks identified in the Climate Change Risk Assessment. This process is repeated on a five-yearly cycle.
Unfortunately, up to now, this excellent process has not been matched by action. The first two national adaptation plans were woefully inadequate. In March, the Climate Change Committee said that England is not prepared for climate risks and we have lost a decade to inaction. For no adaptation outcome—of the 45 examined in the progress report—do we find evidence of good progress in the delivery and implementation of adaptation policy on the ground. This is a truly shocking assessment of the failure of the Government to take climate adaptation seriously.
We know that climate adaptation is not a priority for this Government, because when the Prime Minister set out his five key priorities for 2023, climate change was not among them. The press is now reporting that the Prime Minister is being urged to ditch or dilute green policies, and today the Prime Minister himself appeared to confirm this.
The Climate Change Committee also said in its report last March:
“The next National Adaptation Programme”—
that is NAP3, published about a week ago—
“must make a step change”.
Otherwise,
“it risks another lost five years of ineffectual adaptation action – which the UK’s people, ecosystems and infrastructure cannot afford”.
The Met Office’s most recent fine resolution projections for the UK climate in 2050, called UKCP18, indicate that we will have
“hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters”.
There will be more extreme events, such as flooding and drought, and sea level will continue to rise. The more the average global temperature rises, the more extreme these effects will be.
This means that, with no effective adaptation, which is the path we are on now, it will be like this in a few decades. People will more frequently overheat in their homes, hospitals, care homes and workplaces. We are not retrofitting old buildings, nor are we designing new buildings, to be resilient to overheating. Houses built in flood plains will be inundated more often due to extreme weather. We are continuing to build new homes in high-risk areas, we are allowing paving over of surfaces in urban areas which leads to surface water flooding, and we are not retrofitting homes to make them more resilient.
Rail and roads will be more likely buckle or melt in hot weather while power infrastructure will be damaged by extreme events. We are not retrofitting our infrastructure to allow it to function under a changed climate. Coastal towns will be inundated by rising sea levels. We are not planning managed retreat from low-lying coastal towns and villages. We will be chronically short of water in many parts of the country. We are not managing demand by domestic users, farmers and industry.
Growing our own food may become more challenging. According to analysis commissioned a few years ago by Defra, much of the most productive farmland in the UK may become unsuitable for agriculture in the second half of this century. Finally, ecosystems and habitats and the services they provide will suffer because they are in poor condition now.
This sounds like a grim scenario for future generations but, unless the Government start serious action now, these are not unrealistic scenarios. Although the Times this morning warns us not to be too apocalyptic about future risks, it would be foolhardy to ignore them.
Does NAP3, the third national adaptation plan, give us a glimmer of hope? In her introduction, the Secretary of State says that NAP3 is the “step change” that the Climate Change Committee has called for, and, indeed, there are some positive features: the Government commit to establish a new climate and resilience board of senior officials to work across government; the NAP3 attempts to respond to all 61 climate risks and opportunities in the third Climate Change Risk Assessment; it announces £15 million more for more research from UKRI and Defra. Clearly, we need to know more—we have to have a strong evidence base—but we must not be seduced into paralysis by analysis.
The NAP3 says that the Department for Transport will publish an adaptation strategy and the Department for Business and Trade will publish a new strategy on supply chains, including the impacts of climate change. And NAP3 says that various nature recovery initiatives will take into account the impact and need to adapt to the consequences of climate change. So these are positive aspects of the latest national adaptation plan.
However, the Climate Change Committee says in its assessment that while NAP3 is better than its predecessors, it still falls well short of a plan to ensure that the country is properly prepared for the impacts of climate change. When I started reading it, I was delighted to see on pages 9 to 11 a summary of the actions that the Government will take to prepare us for the future impacts of climate change.
As noble Lords will know, actions come in three categories: inputs, outputs and outcomes. In the end, it is outcomes that count. Unfortunately, none of the actions listed on those pages of the third national adaptation plan are outcome actions, nor is it explained how the impact of the actions listed will be measured or over what timescale. In short, NAP3 will not tell us whether or not the Government are effectively adapting this country to climate change. The words used to describe those actions, such as “take into account”, “update”, “work with”, “survey” and “explore” do not give much confidence that the actions are directly linked to outcomes. Furthermore, although the NAP appears to announce new initiatives, at least some of those are simply reheated existing policies and funding commitments, such as the £5.2 billion for flood and coastal defences, the tripling of ODA adaptation funding, and the adverse health and weather plan.
My final point about the third national adaptation plan is that the so-called adaptation reporting power remains voluntary. The power requires organisations that have key functions, such as local authorities and providers of infrastructure and healthcare, to report on their adaptation plans. Surely it should be mandatory that they have to report, not simply voluntary if they care to do so. In short, my reading of NAP3 is summarised as “could do better”.
Before I finish my introduction to this debate, I address my comments to those noble Lords who are sceptical about the need to take any action to adapt to climate change. On July 11, at col. 1636 of Hansard, a Member of your Lordships’ House claimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II says in its sixth assessment report that
“there is not expected to be, nor is there any sign so far of, any increase in droughts, floods, landslides or fires”.—[Official Report, 11/7/23; col. 1636.]
As that statement is in Hansard, I wish to correct it. Here is what IPCC Working Group II says in its summary for policymakers:
“Human-induced climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme events, has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people, beyond natural climate variability … Global warming, reaching 1.5°C in the near-term, would cause unavoidable increases in multiple climate hazards and present multiple risks to ecosystems and humans”.
In the working group’s category of how confident it is, it has very high confidence in that statement.
There are also those who critique the notion of adaptation to climate change because of the costs. They ask whether it is worth spending money now to prepare for an uncertain future. It is worth pointing out that the third climate change risk assessment includes an analysis of the benefit-to-cost ratio of adaptation for different risks. As with any such analysis, there are inherent uncertainties, and the CCRA presents a range of values; it does not anchor on a single value. However, the modal value for many cases is that investing now has a benefit-to-cost ratio of between two and 10—in other words, every pound invested today could yield benefits of between £2 and £10 in future. So although some people argue that it is not worth spending the money now, I think the evidence is against them.
I look forward to the contributions of noble Lords to this debate. I close with some questions for the Minister. First, the national adaptation plan announces a climate and resilience board. Who will be on it, what are its terms of reference, to whom will it report, how often will it meet and will its minutes be made public? Secondly, as I have explained, a problem with the latest national adaptation plan is that it does not set out specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound outcome actions so that it would be possible to measure progress in adaptation. Could the Minister tell us whether the Government have any intention of setting out such specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound outcome actions? If so, by when? Thirdly, could the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to roll back on their green agenda, including climate adaptation, in spite of reports to that effect in the press in the past few days? I beg to move.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an unpaid trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, an educational charity in this area.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for securing this debate. We have all too little debate on climate change and it is all the more important we have it now, since critics of any aspect of this policy find it increasingly difficult to get a hearing in the media. Here in this House, at least, we cannot be censored—though it seems that we run some risk of losing our bank accounts if we dare to speak up.
It is crucial, as we debate this, that we do so in a measured and rational fashion. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister’s comments today suggest that that might be beginning to happen in government. We must put aside the current mood of hysteria and try to assess the choices logically.
When people like me argue about the costs of mitigating climate change, we are often told: “There is no choice. Not acting costs even more”. I question that. Of course temperatures are increasing, slowly, and that will have consequences, but there is another choice, and that is what we are debating today—adaptation.
Let us look at the relative costs and benefits of the two routes. Let us look at the macro level first. The Skidmore net-zero review earlier this year asserted that the costs of mitigation would be 1% to 2% of GDP per year—that is £25 billion to £50 billion sterling—though other studies say it will be quite a lot more than that. Moreover, unless everyone else in the world is willing to bear the same costs, our spending that much will have precisely zero effect on the global climate.
In contrast, look at adaptation. It is not easy to find hard figures about the costs of adaptation but, if we look at the 2021 technical report on this, prepared for the Climate Change Committee in 2021, we see that it shows the cost of adaptation as only £8 billion a year by 2050 and £13 billion to £20 billion, non-discounted, as far out as 2080—and by then, I hope, that will be a very small proportion of our GDP. The orders of magnitude of those figures surely suggest that adaptation might actually be a more productive route than mitigation. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that more will need to be spent on things such as flood protection and reservoirs.
Let us look at one example at the micro level, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: the calls for Britain to adapt to the health consequences of rising temperatures. We should dig in deeper and ask: what are the consequences of hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters? At the moment, seven times as many people die from cold as from heat in Britain. Rising temperatures are likely to be beneficial. No less than the Government Actuary’s Department wrote in April this year that
“it is the low winter temperatures that have a greater effect on the number of deaths … since the start of the millennium … A decline in deaths from cold temperature periods has more than offset any increase in the number of deaths associated with warmer temperature over the same period”.
I am not sceptical about adaptation; I am sceptical about mitigation. I suggest that the rational thing to do is move away from the current high-cost mitigation efforts, which involve massive investment in unproductive renewables, huge changes in lifestyles and the crushing of economic growth, and pursue mitigation in a different way. We should invest in effective energy production—such as nuclear, gas and other technologies as they emerge. Meanwhile, we should spend the manageable sums that we need to on adaptation so we can adjust to the perfectly manageable consequences of slowly rising temperatures as they emerge.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his introduction and attention to this issue, on which he is always clear and relates all the different effects of climate change. I am afraid I cannot be quite so complimentary about the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Frost. The idea that we have a choice between mitigation and adaptation is absurd. We need both. As to the current furore in the newspapers over the weekend, after a by-election in which 250 people voted the wrong way, there is pressure on the leaders of our two main parties to back off from their commitment to green policies and tackling climate change. I find that absolutely absurd. I hope that the leaders of both parties will resist it, and I believe they will.
In Glasgow 18 months ago, Britain was seen to be taking a lead on reductions in fossil fuels. Commitments to adaptation were less clear, but nevertheless they were there. There was a minimalist contribution by rich nations to help the adaptation of more vulnerable, usually poorer, nations. Since then, we have gone backwards as a country in terms of UK leadership and as a globe as whole. The recent Climate Change Committee report—the last from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and I pay tribute to his work and look forward to what he has to say—clearly shows, as do the other reports referred to, that Britain is not on track to achieve net zero or to have adapted to the warmer, more dangerous world that will ensue, and nor is the world on that check.
We have seen the results in heatwaves, high temperatures, wildfires, melting ice caps and disappearing glaciers. Sea temperatures and levels rise, while at the same time we have seen a loss of reliable rainfall and fresh water. We will now not, frankly, meet the target of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees—the Paris target. Nor will we restrain it to 2 degrees. The more off course we are for mitigating global warming, the more essential is the need to prioritise and pay for adaptation, with significant investment and major economic and societal behaviour change. The longer we continue to burn fossil fuels, drive diesel cars and cut down trees, the more expensive and difficult that adaptation becomes.
For some countries, adaptation is an existential requirement. Low-lying islands such as the Maldives and some Caribbean and Pacific nations will disappear unless we adapt as well as mitigate. Yet the already inadequate Glasgow commitments made by richer nations have failed to materialise. Here in Britain, we need a focus on flood defence. We need to be prepared to designate which land we will have to abandon, yet we are still building on floodplains. For this city of London, we need to start assessing the cost and the need for a second Thames barrier. We need to be building net-zero homes, yet the Government have abandoned those regulations.
Adaptations mean not only major infrastructure expenditure and commitment but societal change in our behaviour. The Environment and Climate Change Committee of your Lordships’ House, on which I sit, produced a report a few months ago in which we looked at changes in relation to food, energy and transport. I will not go over those, but they are all needed. At the moment, we are so far off the net-zero trajectory that we have little chance of limiting climate change. We need early focus on adaptation. The recent adaptation report from the sub-committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, who is not in her place, indicates that early adaptation investment could, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, give 10 times as much benefit later on and avoid additional expenditure. And yet we have the present pressure on today’s leaders and commitments by the major parties to back off from their policies.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I listened to the “Thought for the Day” programme this morning, where the theologian likened the politicians’ retreat to the position of St Augustine. But, in this context, “not yet” is too late.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for tabling this much-needed debate and for his very knowledgeable introduction. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome my noble friend Lord Russell, with whom I have had the pleasure to work on at least two campaigns for the London elections. I look forward very much to his maiden speech, which I know will be excellent.
It used to be that extreme climate change events mainly threatened lives in low-lying developing countries, where weak structures were swept away by floodwaters and desertification was a food and water issue for the famine-stricken countries of the Sahel. However, today, in a few short years the narrative has changed, particularly in the richer countries of the world. Who, before a few years ago, had heard of heat domes or atmospheric rivers? Frighteningly, these heat domes are covering larger areas in the US, Europe and Asia than ever before. According to NASA, atmospheric rivers are forecast to become more frequent, longer and wider.
The global temperature rise is already nearing 1.2 degrees centigrade, yet fossil fuels emissions are still increasing. According to the IEA, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions grew by 0.9% or 321 megatons last year, reaching a new high of over 36.8 gigatons.
Time per speaker is short for this debate, but it is essential to spend a little time to appreciate the context within which adaptation to extreme events is urgent. Unless we accept that fossil fuel emissions must be stopped as soon as humanly possible, it will be too late to act, and we will render vast swathes of our planet uninhabitable. The climate change deniers—reincarnated as climate change delayers—have much to answer for. Their insistence that we do not take out insurance to safeguard our planet means that we will lose our no-claims bonus and end up paying inordinately more—and with more than just money. The Government’s NAP3 does not inspire confidence.
Our hotter summers need cooler homes, the energy for which, for obvious reasons, will come most efficiently and cheaply from solar PV. I suggest to the Minister that a sensible immediate policy change would be to lift the moratorium on solar PV. He should lend his support to the amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill for rooftop solar on every new domestic and commercial building—an amendment to which I have added my name. The IEA and the IPCC are clear: we have the means to supply all our energy needs without new fossil fuels and therefore without adding to the already deadly accumulation of greenhouse gases.
If an inventory of historic emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution is apportioned by nation, it is clear that the bulk of the responsibility for the clean-up lies with the richer nations of the world, not with those which have contributed the least to the problem. The loss of environmental benefits and the degradation of natural capital will be global and affect us all. Enlightened self-interest, if nothing else, should dictate that we take urgent adaptation measures seriously, both here at home and around the rest of our planet.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Krebs for the very thoughtful way in which he introduced the debate. I declare my interests as chairman of the King’s Fund and chairman of King’s Health Partners.
I will focus, over the next three minutes or so, on the question of adaptation to climate change and the potential impact on the delivery of healthcare in our country and the health of our fellow citizens. It is quite right to be thoughtful and measured in considering these matters, but there is no doubt that we saw a substantial impact in Europe during the last heatwave of 2022, with the reported excess deaths associated with heat. Indeed, last year we saw in our own country some 2,500 reported excess deaths associated with heat-related conditions.
The impact of climate change can be seen very much as having a multiplying effect on underlying predispositions to poor health outcomes. For instance, a predisposition to heart disease or respiratory conditions can be exacerbated by the impact of alterations in climate. We also know that the nature of the diseases that we will experience as the climate changes in our own country will need to be carefully planned for. For instance, in the future we will see more vector-related diseases, mosquito-related diseases—such as Zika virus and West Nile fever—and, potentially, malaria, if the predictions are correct. Tick-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease, will be seen more frequently. There is an important need to ensure that, with the potential for flooding, other waterborne diseases are properly recognised and can be treated early, and that appropriate public health measures can be employed to mitigate against them.
There is also the question of how the public health system more broadly is to prepare itself. It is clearly important that we have appropriate surveillance mechanisms in place through the Health Protection Agency to identify and to characterise the changing frequency, occurrence and regional distribution of such diseases. With the risk, more broadly, of global climate change comes the establishment of newer zoonotic diseases, as animals and humans are forced to live in much closer proximity. Much of what we learned during the Covid pandemic needs to be retained and applied in a thoughtful and appropriate fashion to ensure that those surveillance mechanisms are in place, so that when diseases occur and when individuals develop those conditions, there can be appropriate measures in place—for instance, establishing the sequence of novel viruses and so on which might occur as a result of those climate impacts.
There is also a very important opportunity for us to start adapting the built environment of our hospitals. His Majesty’s Government are rightly committed to a major hospital-building programme. That provides the opportunity to start designing our hospitals so that they can provide services to our fellow citizens in the future that may be much more like services associated with the management of acute infectious diseases. That includes the management of patients who have underlying chronic conditions; they may see acute exasperations, such as exasperated respiratory illnesses, in periods of a substantial climate change and climate variation.
I will ask the Minister two questions. First, are His Majesty’s Government content that the Health Protection Agency is now properly mobilised and constructed in such a way to be able to provide the kind of surveillance and acute interventions that are required to protect us? Secondly, is the Minister content that the hospital-building programme is building in such a way as to deal with the potential consequences of climate change?
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for this timely debate and very much look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
The Church Commissioners and the Church of England Pensions Board have recently taken the decision to divest from fossil fuels following insufficient progress towards meeting the targets set by their investment boards in 2018. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury put it:
“We have long urged companies to take climate change seriously, and specifically to align with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and pursue efforts to limit the rise in temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels … Some progress has been made, but not nearly enough. The Church will follow not just the science, but our faith—both of which call us to work for climate justice”.
While mitigating the worst impacts of climate change must remain our primary goal—and here I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, especially when we consider the global dimension—the Church and the communities we serve have increasingly recognised the need for adaptation too, not least given the alarmingly rapid rise in so-called freak weather events that are impacting us all, and not simply those in far-flung corners of the globe. Heatwaves, droughts and heavy rainfall have affected every community across the nation in recent years, with the freakish apparently becoming the new normal. Churches have begun to think through how they can adapt so as to provide a base for emergency services, a safe refuge from extreme weather events and a sanctuary from overheating, as well as considering how their buildings might be protected from flooding, subsidence and other severe impacts of the climate crisis.
Many of our churches, including some in my own diocese, are set in predominantly agricultural communities, and I am grateful for today’s debate secured by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter highlighting the housing crisis there and elsewhere. Yet alongside those challenges sits a whole range of adaptation concerns too. The English language, like the Hebrew of the Jewish Bible, has a single root for “human”, “humility” and “humus”—the soil or tilth—reminding us of the complete interdependence between humanity and the soil we cultivate, and the consequent need to treat the planet humbly and with respect. Yet the pressing need for a cohesive strategy for land use to tackle climate-related degradation of the soil and what we grow in it is largely unmet by the Government’s NAP3, leading to unanswered concerns around food security, not least given the equal pressures on other nations on which we have traditionally depended when crops have failed.
The huge incoming changes in the structure of farming subsidies, with the phasing out of the basic payment scheme and the phasing in of the environmental land management schemes, are valuable and worthy in their intent. But difficulties in accessing new funding are in danger of pushing many small farmers over the edge, and the new schemes are insufficiently integrated with climate goals and indicators, on both mitigation and adaptation. Investment is needed here to help farmers and land managers choose the optimal use for each plot of land, considering water management, crop productivity, carbon storage and non-farm uses, alongside the Government’s existing and welcome commitment to greater biodiversity.
Water infrastructure is equally in need of fresh investment, not simply in reservoirs and pipe renewals but in nature-based solutions. Very little UK agriculture is currently irrigated, but that is likely to change as water supplies become increasingly inconsistent, with severe implications for our already stretched reservoir capacity. Meanwhile, the spectre of synchronised crop failures across a whole family of nations is real, making the case for lessening our dependence on imports even stronger.
I declare an interest in crop improvement work, in which my son-in-law Peter is involved as a foundation fellow at the Norwich Institute for Sustainable Development. Peter would be the first to acknowledge that a cohesive approach to land use is by far the most important factor in the food security equation, whatever the weather.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for introducing this debate so moderately and reasonably, and I look forward to the maiden speech from the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
I am sure the House will remember that the Global Warming Policy Foundation to which my noble friend Lord Frost adheres used to say that climate change was not happening. Then it said it was happening a bit and now, evidently, it says that it is happening but other people ought to deal with it and we should not be involved at all. We are not talking about that, happily, but I look forward to a debate with my noble friend when I shall be quoting the science and he will be quoting the prejudices.
I have been a businessman all my life—except when I was a Minister—and I am always interested in finding certainties. We have a certainty here: the weather is changing dramatically and we have to sort out our acceptance of it. That means that we cannot talk about deaths, as my noble friend Lord Frost did. I do not think that the families of people who die because of heat are very much cheered by the fact that there are fewer people dying because of cold. The fact is that we have to deal with these problems. We have to do something about our care homes, most—not just many—of which are entirely unsuited for the weather that we are going to have.
We still have not had the future homes legislation to bring new houses up to date. A million and a half crap houses have been built, and the next generation—the people who have paid for them and contributed to the profits of the housebuilders—are the ones who are going to have to change those houses.
We have rising sea levels, but I see very little in this report about how we are going to deal with that. However, I want to concentrate, in my short time, on water. I come from East Anglia, which is now a semi-arid region. The local water company has announced that it cannot produce any connections for new commercial businesses until 2032, because it has not got any water. In south-east England, South East Water has not been able to provide water for quite a number of its people for this part of the year, and we have not got into August yet, nor have we had the kind of withering hot weather we had last year.
We must make sure that we are making the changes that are necessary, and it will be cheaper to do it now than pay the costs and have to do it later. That is the difference. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that it is not just 2:10; it is the cost in between times that not having spent lays on our shoulders. We in the Climate Change Committee—I declare my interest as its former chairman—gave the Government a list of things that could be done, and needed to be done. We expected not only that the Government should accept them but that they should be able to measure whether they had done them and that the outcomes would be available for people to know. That has not happened. I say to my noble friend that unless you measure it—I come back to being a businessman—you do not do it.
If this were presented to me as the company report on how we were to deal with the problems of climate change, I would have to say that the person who presented it should be sacked. That is how I feel about this report.
Earl Russell (LD) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I rise to speak very aware of the history of this great Chamber, and very aware of my small part in the narrative. I am honoured to be a Member of this House and I wish to thank everyone, particularly the doorkeepers, who have made me so welcome.
Thank you for the kind words I have received about my father, Conrad. I know he is still remembered, particularly for his unique historical and constitutional knowledge. If I might share with your Lordships: one of his proudest moments was when, during one very late-night sitting, he out-quoted the Bishops one by one with the Bible.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for bringing this important debate forward. I am passionate about the environment. My commitment and care come from my personal experience of adventure, long-distance walking and a love of wild places. Climate change is happening now. It is real and it is truly frightening. No longer the stuff of dystopian films, it is our present reality.
I recognise the work the Government have done to date, and the ambitions they have set to be a global leader and to reach UK net zero by 2050. However, all the present political mood music is pessimistic. The Government’s new climate adaption programme does not go far enough. The Government are on course to miss every target to hit net zero, according to their own advisers. This month, we heard that the Government plan to drop their own flagship £11.6 billion climate and nature funding pledge.
Halting climate change at 1.5 degrees Celsius has passed, and 2 degrees Celsius may be passed as well. On current trends, the world will be 2.8 degrees warmer by the end of this century. We do not know where the ultimate tipping points are, but we know that we are getting way too close. The one thing we do not have is time. In the words of Bill McKibben:
“If we do not win very quickly on climate change, then we will never win ... It’s what makes it different from every other problem our political systems have faced”.
The questions of what to do and how we fight for our common survival must be addressed and solutions found and implemented with utmost urgency. We have to adapt our ways of life, our cities, our transport systems, simply for our society to continue to function and survive. We must have hope and inspire confidence that change is possible. The costs of adaption and of preventing climate change may be high, but the costs and consequences of not doing so will be higher still. The UK cost of net zero is estimated to be around £10 billion per year. UK GDP is £3.1 trillion per year: we can afford to do this.
Systems must be found to distribute costs equitably, both within individual countries and within the international system. We can change. We can accept that solutions are global, not state-centric, and that survival is collective not individual. We can set aside our short-term national and political self-interests and work collectively for the survival of all humanity. Internationally, much more must be done urgently to encourage and leverage international finance to pay for adaption in developing countries. We must continue to conduct international climate research to better understand our climate systems. The UK must join Europe’s Horizon programme.
Big companies and businesses must adapt: they will be part of the solutions we need for a functioning society. The biggest polluters must be held accountable. We must give nature and the ecosystem an economic value and assign it worth. We need a new economics and a global green economy. We must pay to start reversing climate change now, or we will pay more and we may not be able to stop runaway climate change later. We must fight for a secure future for humanity.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, it is my very great pleasure to welcome my noble friend Lord Russell to these Benches and to congratulate him on his excellent and very thought-provoking maiden speech. He is the first new colleague to join these Benches since 2016 and, although he comes via an appointment process whose days may well be numbered, he will be a valuable addition to the knowledge and expertise of this Chamber. We have heard of his passion for protecting the planet from the dire effects of climate change and, in doing so, he will find a meeting of minds with many of us in your Lordships’ House. I know he is also passionate about outdoor adventure and education and about enabling children from disadvantaged backgrounds to have the joy and developmental opportunities of working with nature, and I look forward to hearing more about that.
The global effort to tackle climate change faces many barriers, with political dysfunction being one of them. Perhaps that is why the third national adaptation plan, published last week, has been described as weak. Politicians understandably tend to favour policies that are popular with the voters. Research shows that voters reward politicians for delivering emergency relief, such as rescuing people from forest fires and floods, but last week’s Uxbridge by-election showed that they are less keen on investing in natural-disaster preparedness. But preventive and adaptive policies on climate change will cost less if we do them soon rather than leave them till later, as the Climate Change Committee has often warned.
Floods, wildfires and deadly heat are a reminder that climate change is already happening. The question is whether that will generate new political will for preventing harm, not just reacting to it. Here in the UK, climate change is already having a deadly impact on our health and well-being. The One Health multi-disciplinary approach, as recommended by the WHO, recognises the complex relationship between the health of humans, animals and the planet.
The UK health and care system needs both a plan and capacity to deal with the results of extreme weather. The NHS Adverse Weather and Health Plan, published in May, is not good enough. Currently we have long waiting lists and overflowing A&E departments. What extra resources will be provided to achieve that plan, and is this included in the long-term workforce plan?
There are many aspects of health affected by climate change. People who work outdoors in the UK are rarely prevented from doing so on hot days, but the increased effects of UV radiation are already increasing the incidence of skin cancer. Elsewhere, extreme temperatures make it impossible to work outdoors, which puts our access to a varied, healthy diet at risk through climate-caused food shortages. It will also cause a mass movement of people—a humanitarian crisis in the offing. It is not just people who will move—as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, reminded us, mosquito-borne viruses such as West Nile, dengue and Zika are an increasing risk to UK public health.
Because the global food supply is at risk, it is essential that we grow more of our own. Your Lordships’ horticulture Select Committee, on which I serve, is taking evidence about the challenges and opportunities for the growth of our horticulture sector, but the House will have to wait until November for our recommendations. Suffice it to say, there are opportunities as well as challenges.
Extreme weather events causing flooding are becoming more frequent, with long-term negative impacts on mental health and livelihoods. Yet the resources available to the Environment Agency to ensure effective mitigation measures have fallen in recent years. When will the Government reverse that? It is essential.
Air pollution is a significant public health problem. Sadly, the legally binding air quality standard in the UK lags far behind that in the EU, despite the demands of many of us in your Lordships’ House. As we have seen, there is considerable resistance to measures designed to clean up our air. More non-emission private and public transport is part of the solution.
Climate change presents opportunities as well as challenges, but we are missing opportunities. Global competition for green growth is intensifying, yet the UK’s investment in the energy transition has fallen compared with other G7 economies, according to the CBI’s Green Growth report, losing us a potential £37 billion to £57 billion boost to GDP by 2030. Is it not therefore time for the UK equivalent of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and the EU’s Net-Zero Industry Act?
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the excellent maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We welcome him most sincerely to the House of Lords. My thanks go also to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for initiating this important debate.
I shall focus on food and food security. We are all aware of the effect of global conflict on food supplies, not least because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization has already identified Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Sudan, Yemen and Afghanistan as facing acute food insecurity. However, it stresses the impact of climate change, quite apart from the conflicts in that part of the world.
Due to excessive heavy monsoon damage to crops, India has very recently banned the export of 10 million tonnes of rice. This follows on from the monsoon damage in Pakistan the year before. Those 10 million tonnes of rice would mostly have gone to Africa—a stable crop that it will not now receive.
The extremes of weather that we see around the world should not just be dismissed as the norm for certain parts of the globe. Global commodity prices will affect us all, and scarcity leads to increased prices at best, starvation at worst.
In the UK, home-produced food production stands at 60%. I believe that we face a long-term challenge, because our attitude is that if we do not produce it here, we can always get it somewhere else. We had some experience of that last winter with winter vegetables, when the shelves in the supermarkets were actually bare.
Recent history tells us that severe flooding, wildfires and extreme weather conditions have always occurred, but not to the extent that they do now. Increasingly, we experience microclimates that did not occur before. I have had some experience of that; my home was flooded twice—a house that had stood for 200 years had three feet of water through the ground floor twice in 10 years—and the Environment Agency told me that I was subject to a microclimate.
Add to this the impact on food production of what is happening to water supplies, as access to water is the most important factor in agriculture. As temperatures rise, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers and the water table drop. Can my noble friend say what is being planned here? In line with what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was asking, can we have a timetable for when these matters will be addressed, not just for outcomes?
Global warming and sporadic extremes of climate have already shown us that this is not a uniform process. Where things will happen is not always predictable; we need science to give us more of a steer. There will also be changes in biodiversity. Animal and plant diseases will begin to appear in areas where previously they were not a threat, which will have a big impact on food and agriculture. What contingency planning is being done? The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, mentioned human health, but this will apply equally to animals, plants and our most important food-producing industries.
I am disappointed that the Government in their food strategy in June last year did not take Henry Dimbleby’s advice to be much bolder in protecting food security and the environment. I hear people talk about 2030 or 2050; I am worried about next year and the year after. An old tune—I will not sing it—keeps going through my head:
“Enjoy yourself, it’s later than you think”.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, we are watching two very bizarre events at the same moment: the intense tragedy of people fleeing a burning Europe and trying, mid-holiday, to get out of a desperate place and survive, and the political shenanigans of the two main party leaders being equally indecisive about whether they believe climate change deserves intense heat action—lasering in on what must be the duties of government rather than just the short-term gains of a by-election.
I had responsibility for the climate reduction plan at one of the big four audit firms, with 200,000 people and 170 countries; I was head of corporate responsibility across KPMG. We met and achieved more than our target of 29% carbon reduction over 10 years—we achieved over 35%. That required one major action that I do not yet see contained in any government documents: a deep and detailed information and public awareness campaign for all the staff of the organisation, let alone their families and the public in the towns and cities in which we operated, to ensure that people understood the savage costs of inaction, the necessity of taking action and what that would cost each individual.
Just recently, we watched the end of Glastonbury—how fantastic! But the day after—in particular if you watched on the BBC, which covered it live—you saw literally millions of tonnes of deposited rubbish left behind after the final concert. People abandon carelessly and believe somebody else will take responsibility. This goes to the heart of our adaptive problem; we still do not believe that it is down to us. We still think it is about what government must do, but so much of it is about what I must do, what we must do, and the costs we must be aware of. Then people say, “You’re naive—we can’t afford to add cost burdens on our shopping and energy bills so that we can mitigate appropriately and adapt effectively”.
Given the Rhodes situation, I decided to check how many British adults and children are going on holiday in 2023. The figure will work out at just in excess of 53 million adults and children who will take overseas holidays in 2023. There were 49 million last year, and even in the year of Covid it was 8.2 million—how that happened is interesting, but never mind. The reality is that people can afford, in mass numbers, to undertake easy pleasures, but when it comes to affording the cost of responding to the cataclysmic crisis of climate change we are told that we cannot afford it. We can, but citizens will not be aware of that unless the Government make them aware. The Government were remarkable, in the multiple alliances—“a-lie-ances”—of deceit around Brexit, at telling everybody of all the great gains they would have, but now we wonder where anyone is. We must become serious about this issue. If public campaigning is not taken seriously, and if I do not realise what I am costing and what everyone is costing, we will continue to holiday at random and do nothing to change our behaviour.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on his incisive opening to this debate, and for getting it in the first place. It is fantastic to have the noble Earl, Lord Russell, here, as yet another person who cares about planet and people—it is absolutely amazing.
One of the problems with coming further down the speakers’ lists in these debates is that I get distracted by all the people who come before me. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, mentioned Glastonbury —I was there, so I can talk to him more about the waste and the rubbish. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, made all the denialist tropes. If he would like more debate, I can recommend some leading climate scientists who can explain the situation to him, instead of him reading right-wing conspiracy theories, as those are quite damaging.
I am not going to ask the Minister any questions because I do not think he will answer them to my satisfaction, even marginally. The Government are so awful on the issue of climate change, on both mitigation and adaptation; they are absolutely incompetent. I can see that the Minister is not hanging his head in shame, but he really ought to.
As we have heard from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, things are going to get tough. It is saying that, as we go towards 2 degrees of warming, there will be impacts on things such as food. With a rise of up to 2 degrees, people and Governments can adapt to a great extent by changing what we grow, where we grow it and when we harvest it. However, those are no longer once-in-a-generation changes; they are changes that will happen at least every decade, and possibly every few years, as the climate shifts further away from what we have known.
The IPCC also found that, once we go beyond 2 degrees, the damage to world food production will be absolutely devastating, no matter how much we try to adapt. That will of course mean the migration of millions of people, as they try to find food and homes. Millions of people will die—I hate to be depressing about this but I cannot see any way round it. The human world will become smaller, as ecosystems that support life simply collapse. We have to take responsibility for our failure to mitigate the impacts of climate change. We are very slow to adapt. Beyond 2 degrees, we get into an era where millions of species will die—plants, creatures and fungi. We will die with them—the bees go and they take us with them.
One vast area that the Government are not doing enough about is the ocean. As the oceans warm, all sorts of things are changing. We can see that they are changing already, but we do not know how far they will go. Adaptation is all very well if you know what is going to happen, but with the ocean we do not have the scientific data to tell us. Changes in ecosystems barely register with us as crucial when they could be really worrying.
In the meantime, Oceana, an organisation that campaigns to achieve measurable outcomes that will protect and restore our ocean, says we must end new offshore oil and gas drilling and accelerate a just transition to renewable energy; ban bottom trawling in offshore marine protected areas and within three nautical miles of the coast; and end overfishing by committing to catch quotas in line with scientific advice. That all sounds like really good advice for the Government to take.
Finally, if the Government do only one thing, they really have to just stop oil.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this important debate. My focus this evening is to concentrate just on one issue—one example of where global warming and climate change are having an adverse effect and acting as a multiplier or accelerator to the damage being inflicted on our environment. In so doing, I declare my interest as chair of governors at Haberdashers’ Monmouth Schools.
At our schools we have decided to champion climate change and sustainability. Our flagship policy is the health of the River Wye. Our objective is to place sustainability at the heart of everything we do, and for that reason we are one of only eight schools in the United Kingdom on the ISC advisory group on sustainability. The River Wye is in sight from all our schools. It runs through Wales, Herefordshire, and Gloucestershire. The River Wye is ill; it is in poor health. Local practices, many uncontrolled, are impacting the ecosystems, and global warming compounds their damaging effect. Treated sewage is discharged into the river and combines with run-off from farms. When combined with rising temperatures, conditions become perfect for algal blooms, which limit oxygen levels in the river and act to distress the lifestyle of the whole ecosystem. The depletion of ozone is happening due to global warming and is a major factor behind rapid growth in algal blooms.
Global warming compounds the problem. At seven to 16 degrees centigrade, fish are happy and active. By 19 degrees, temperatures are too high, and fish are stressed. Aquatic life at this temperature and above will increase the risk of fish mortality. Last month, temperatures in the River Wye during the daytime exceeded 20 degrees, leading to fish mortality, and the incidence of such high temperatures is not a one off but regularly reoccurs. The Wye Valley is an iconic landscape, hugely important for biodiversity. It is an SSSI and part of it comprises the River Wye special area of conservation. Yet it is dying.
My intention on focusing on the Wye this evening is to demonstrate that climate change must never be viewed in isolation from the wider devastation to which it contributes. The decline in the health of our rivers is magnified by climate change, which can turn manageable problems into a heady cocktail of aggressive destruction, as they increasingly oscillate from flood to drought. On the River Wye we have a duty not only to take action against the huge algal blooms, the invisible poison of phosphate and the dumping of over 1 million tonnes of manure from farms housing up to 10 million chickens; we have to engage in the climate change debate, to which the impacts of these actions are linked.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings: we need to campaign. It is vitally important to engage with young people in all our schools in the UK, following the lead we are taking in Monmouth, and to assist in ensuring the integration of environmental and sustainable principles into the educational delivery and operational procedures in all our schools. We must do all this with the same commitment as we intend to generate with our focus on the River Wye. It is one of our great rivers, which must be nursed out of intensive care and away from its current spiralling decline to once again becoming the river which used to see 2,000 to 3,000 salmon run every year, not today’s few hundred stressed fish. We will do that only if all politicians lead by example and work with all students in the United Kingdom, as we intend to do with the people in Monmouth, those living in our towns and villages close to the river, and the many organisations that come together and work so diligently to save the Wye.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the other Cross-Bench Peers who have supported this important debate. For my contribution this evening, I will stick in the mud to focus on our coastal fringes and particularly our intertidal habitat. As we all know from our earliest biology lessons, this is where terrestrial life began, and terrestrial life’s survival in the face of climate change depends on how we manage it.
This habitat is the most productive for protein, offering unparalleled biodiversity. It will protect our largest towns and cities from storms and rising tides; it provides carbon sequestration potential and cleans pollutants from the water; it is easily accessible, to the benefit of our health and well-being—yet it is ever changing and highly vulnerable, requiring constant, active and sympathetic management. Unfortunately, national policy and regulation largely ignore it. My request to the Minister is that he explain what the Government intend to do about this.
I declare my interests as set out in the register, including my membership of the Wetlands APPG and my stewardship of intertidal habitat on the Exe estuary. I also work for a law firm that is a leading adviser on natural capital and was recently engaged by a leading NGO to consider the regulation of our marine and coastal environment.
If we are to adapt to climate change, we need to regulate accordingly. Regulation of our natural capital has traditionally been siloed between Natural England’s responsibility for land and the Marine Management Organisation’s oversight of the marine environment. During the passage of both the Agriculture Act and the Environment Act this was noted repeatedly, including the failure of ELMS and other programmes to include the intertidal space, which provides such opportunity for the propagation of shellfish, seagrass and seaweed.
The UK shellfish industry generates nearly £l billion in revenue per annum, much of which is a high-margin, export-led business that supports coastal employment. Across the south-west the industry is threatened by warming water and the invasive Pacific oyster, which is rendering large areas of foreshore simply inaccessible and unfarmable. There is no joined-up strategy to combat it.
Seagrass absorbs and stores carbon and provides a vital home for nature. Healthy meadows can help protect communities from the impacts of coastal erosion and flooding, as well as reducing coastal pollution. We have lost up to 92% of the UK’s seagrass meadows.
Seaweed farming is both a regenerative food production method and a nature-based solution. It does not require additional land, feed, fresh water, fertiliser or pesticides, making it a very low-impact production method. It has the added advantage of absorbing excess nutrients from the sea, such as nitrogen and phosphorus. It can also temporarily remove carbon from the ocean and displace carbon-intensive products, helping to combat climate change.
Across the UK, ground-breaking projects in these industries experience delays and barriers in relation to licensing, impinging on the wider efforts to restore oceans, shift to sustainable food production and adapt to climate change. Concerns have been raised about the cost, complexity and time it takes to apply for licences and the lack of consistency from licensing bodies. The current licensing regime is simply not fit for purpose because it was designed to regulate building, development and extractive industries and was aimed at preventing damage to coastal habitats. It has the effect of inhibiting projects which would actively benefit coastal habitats and help us to adapt.
If we are to deliver on the environmental adaptation commitments of this Government, it is essential that we have a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose. I look forward to the Minister’s response and ask that he takes this issue forward with the appropriate departments across Whitehall.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for giving us the chance to have this debate. I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as I did many of his father’s speeches. I look forward to plenty of future iterations.
I approach this debate in a positive frame of mind. I look at the national adaptation programme and think, “Yeah, that’s a good start”—but I shall not be short of ideas of how to do even better. I share my noble friend Lord Frost’s preference for adaptation. It is something we can do. We can get this done ourselves and look after ourselves. We do not have to fret about what the rest of the world is doing as we do with amelioration, where all our efforts would be wasted if they do not come up to scratch. With adaptation, we can absolutely look after ourselves. It ought to be the focus. I share my noble friend Lord Deben’s wish that that focus should immediately be on water. I declare an interest as a resident of the south-east. This is something we can do.
There is no UK shortage of water, but it is a big project; it is something where there needs to be a fair degree of consensus between all sides of politics on what we should do. It is something we should be actively trying to get on with, because the problems are with us now and will, we expect, get considerably worse. Of course, it might be that the Gulf Stream stops and we all get cold, but I think we should not bet on that.
There are some things we can do that we can all agree are worthwhile, whatever the circumstances. We should be putting extra money into crop genetics. We know that we will need to change the crops we grow; we know that will we need them to deal with different climate, whatever else happens. We really ought not be so dependent on varieties of grass. We are not in a resilient situation and we have the skills in this country to do a great deal better. We ought, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said, to major on disease surveillance; we ought to know what is going on.
As my noble friend will discover when we get back to LURB, we ought to be doing stuff on local solar: solar on roofs, particularly industrial roofs, is just a total no-brainer. Solar and cooling go together, like love and marriage, and we are not doing enough to make that possible at the moment. The other thing we need to major on is truthfulness. I have been very impressed by noble Lords from all sides today, and much less so by the BBC in its garish reporting of dubious statistics on temperatures here and abroad.
We also ought to be looking at long-timescale things: restoration and renewal should remind us that this is committing us to defend London for one or two centuries. We ought to agree how we will do that, and where the barrier will be. What will be the technology? If we take those long-term decisions now, we shall build infrastructure that fits with the future, rather than stuff that will get washed away in the next flood.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. If I were ever on the wrong side of him in a court and he were the prosecutor, I think I would plead guilty and ask for the maximum sentence as quickly as possible. In fact, the whole of the rest of the debate here hardly had to happen; it would have been interesting just to have had that dialogue between the noble Lord and the Minister. I ought, in some ways, to welcome the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to this debate, because it always seemed to me that adaptation was supposed to be for Defra, yet so often it is missing in action. So, I thank him from these Benches for standing in and answering many noble Lords’ questions.
My congratulations to my noble friend Lord Russell. If I can persuade him to stick to the climate change agenda and portfolio, I would be most grateful myself. I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is here, because we need to have a proper debate in this House and I thank him. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that it seems a bit of a Malthusian or utilitarian argument that we can get rid of the hot ones to save the cold ones; I guess what we want to do is save them all—let us see if we can do that.
One of the things that is most important is a statistic mentioned by my noble friend Lady Sheehan. Temperatures have already risen 1.2 degrees centigrade. We have that target of 1.5 degrees centigrade now from Paris that seems far more difficult. It is estimated that we have a quarter of a degree increase in temperatures every decade, so we do not have far to go. I want to echo something that the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, alluded to, which is the speed of change. Whenever we look at this area—this is why that prosecution case from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is so important—we have an acceleration.
I, like many other people in politics and advocates of this agenda, used to use the cliché “Well, we need to do it for our grandchildren”. Forget the grandchildren; we need to do it for our actual children, and for some of us who are the average of the House or slightly less, probably for ourselves as well. It is happening and that is why it is so important that we take this adaptation agenda so seriously.
I remember that one of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, often uses with regard to climate change is around insurance: this is our insurance policy—another noble Lord used that phrase. For me, another truism is that one of the first responsibilities of government is the security of the nation; its number one objective is to keep our nation secure. We often think of that in terms of defence or 2% of GDP—all those areas which are particularly important during these years of the Ukraine war. In fact, this is the most challenging part of our national security, because if we do not get adaptation right our nation will be inundated, period. That is what will happen. That is why, as was mentioned, if we stretch the Prime Minister’s five objectives out beyond the next general election, adaptation should actually be number 1, 2 or 3. It needs to be there—it is a fundamental part of government responsibility.
I think sometimes that the Minister thinks I am overcritical of the Government—he is denying it, of course, over there. It has to be recognised that this is not an easy area for government policy, for taxpayers or for people. Adaptation is not one of those issues where, potentially, we can show an immediate benefit in cost, as we can for renewable energy and EVs. There are lots of ways we could do it, and we could get the private sector to be part of it, such as changing the specifications of our homes and our buildings, with solar energy in warehouses and industrial and commercial buildings. However, there is real cost here. Perhaps the person who most needs to be here is the Treasury spokesman, because the issue is around having to put real resources into changing and improving the situation. It is a difficult area in government policy but it is one that we have to do.
We have all those vulnerabilities that noble Lords have mentioned, such as in health, as spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley, and around food systems and nature. I have to tell the noble Earl, Lord Devon, the good news: IFCA tells me that, the more it looks at the seabed, the more seagrass it sees. The amount might be going down but we are discovering more, which is a good thing.
I will not take up all my 10 minutes because so much has been said already. I want to come back to two questions, one of which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. When will the Government’s climate resilience board meet and who will be on it? Will it concentrate on nature-based solutions and adaptation? The phrase has become a bit of a cliché but it is one that can really work, and work across the terrestrial-marine border. Will the Government take that positively?
I want to come back to that one issue of mine: that the Government’s responsibility is the security of this nation. The most important medium-term way that that is challenged is through climate change, rising ocean height and all the events that we see. It is so important, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, that the Government take adaptation much more seriously than they have done so far.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to his place, It was an excellent maiden speech and I look forward to working with him in the coming years. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing such a timely debate.
As we convene this evening, fires rage across Europe. Families have had to be evacuated from Rhodes and now Corfu, and temperatures have broken all records. Parts of southern Europe exceeded 47 degrees yesterday. People are struggling, roads are melting and crops are failing in the extreme temperatures. Unfortunately, this is not a unique phenomenon. Last year, 61,752 people died across Europe due to excess temperatures.
Earlier this month, your Lordships’ House questioned the Government on potential global temperature rises of 4% by 2100. While I pray that our planet will not experience such an increase, it is no longer beyond the realms of possibility. However, it is nearly recess, and I wish to be slightly more hopeful. No one who has listened to the calibre of this evening’s debate should question our collective desire to achieve net zero and try to mitigate the worst excesses of the damage already done. This debate has also demonstrated the sheer scale of the issues in front of us, as each noble Lord has highlighted a different threat posed.
Climate change is no longer an academic theory: we are living through the realities every day, and the impact of our changing environment is beginning to affect every part of our lives. It is crucial that we not only seek to mitigate the damage we have done to our environment but prepare effectively to manage the impact of changing temperatures on our daily lives.
As we have heard throughout the debate, the impact of climate change is indiscriminate. Let me touch on some of our deepest concerns. As the NFU has stated, last year was the driest on record in the UK since 1911. This has had an impact on both our domestic agri-businesses and our long-term water table and biodiversity, which in turn will have an impact on the security of our food supply.
Rising temperatures and the increased frequency of extreme weather events are contributing to crop damage and loss, with potentially dramatic consequences for both domestic and global food security. The Government have put many of their eggs in the basket of gene-edited climate-resistant crops, having passed enabling legislation for the development and marketing of such products earlier this year. Can the Minister provide an update on this work and the ongoing discussions being held with stakeholders?
On a similar theme, earlier this year we saw disruption to supply chains as a result of extreme weather conditions in north Africa and across the Mediterranean. Supermarkets called for government support, but Ministers resisted on the basis that supply-chain issues should be resolved by business, not the state. Can the Minister assist the House by letting us know what steps the Government have taken to track progress made by retailers in relation to supply-chain diversity and appropriate mitigations? Do the Government expect the introduction of import checks later this year to exacerbate shortages when they arise?
Moving to a different aspect of security just touched on, I declare my interest as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. One of the issues less frequently discussed when we look at the impact of climate change is how it impacts our national security at a tangible level. In 2017, the Pentagon published a report highlighting that rising sea levels were having an impact on the functionality of its Norfolk shipyard, the largest naval facility in the world. In the last century, sea levels at Norfolk have risen by 1.5 feet and remediation works totalling $300 million are now under way. I know how much work all our services are doing to move to net zero, but remedial works will be necessary. Can the Minister assure the House that the relevant discussions are under way and will be fully funded?
I move on to our energy supply. One of the consequences of extreme temperatures is an increased demand for energy for both air conditioning and other forms of cooling, as well as a need for enhanced heating, for longer periods in both domestic and business premises. What long-term assessments have the Government made of these increases in demand, both in the additional energy that would be required to power new units—earlier this year, a coal power station was put on standby in case air-con use caused a surge in power usage, although evidently that has not been a requirement for us this summer—and the potential longer-term consequences of relying on systems that expel hot air into the environment?
On housing infrastructure, today the Government announced that they plan to meet their manifesto commitment to build 1 million houses before the next general election, seemingly by focusing on urban regeneration using permitted development rights. Putting aside the practicality and the politics of this rehashed commitment, the announcement does lead to some questions following on from the recent report from the Climate Change Committee, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. The committee stated that its confidence in the Government to meet their medium-term targets had decreased over the last year. Specifically on our housing infrastructure, it noted the importance of updating building regulations to ensure that new homes meet higher environmental standards. Can the Minister assure the House that these will be expedited to apply to all newbuilds?
Regarding our current housing stock, it has been reported that a third of the funding pot allocated for improved insulation and green energy installations has yet to be spent. In light of recent reports suggesting that the Energy and Utilities Alliance is seeking to delay the transition to heat pumps, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not be swayed and that they are committed to delivering more sustainable housing?
A recurrent theme of today’s debate is that climate change is an international issue, that unless we work with others to protect our natural resources we will all fail, and that it will be harder for smaller and less wealthy countries to meet their commitments. During the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Government resisted an amendment to increase transparency around financial institutions’ investment in firms that contribute to deforestation. Ministers eventually offered a compromise, but the review may not surface for many years. Given the obvious urgency, can the Minister confirm a timescale for the review?
The issue of climate change is all-encompassing and increasingly terrifying. I would like to conclude in a slightly more positive manner. As this is one of the last debates before the Recess, I wish your Lordships a relaxing and enjoyable break.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I join with the rest of the House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this debate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for kindly welcoming me to the Dispatch Box. This item spans a number of government departments, but most of it is in Defra and my noble friend Lord Benyon was originally going to be replying. Sadly, he is unavailable this evening, but I am delighted to stand in his place, since my department still has the overall responsibility for delivering net zero.
Before I move on to the substantive parts, I join other Members of the House in paying tribute to the excellent speech from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He made a number of brilliant points and we all look forward to hearing his future contributions. I note that he is a photographer who does a lot of work for the London Wildlife Trust. I note also that he is a political photographer as well. Since a friend once described me as somebody with a perfect face for radio, I probably will not be taking great advantage of his political photography skills, but I think my right side is my best, should he ever wish to do so in the future. We look forward to working with him and hearing his contributions to the work of the House.
Even with the many successful actions that we are taking to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions—the best record in the G7, as the House is probably sick of hearing me say—we still need to prepare for the way the climate is changing. We must strengthen our national security and resilience, from producing food and securing water supplies to protecting our health and our natural environment, as well as maintaining critical infrastructure and supply chains. To this end, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, reminded us, last week we launched our Third National Adaptation Programme—NAP3, as nobody refers to it. This sets out the Government’s plans and policies to address a wide range of climate risks and opportunities to the UK that were highlighted in our third climate change risk assessment, published last year. The publication of NAP3 marks a step change in the UK Government’s approach to climate adaptation, putting in place an ambitious programme of decisive action for the next five years across all sectors of the economy and society.
Given the broad range of questions raised by many noble Lords, I will try to group them by theme and hopefully respond to all the points raised. I start with the new climate resilience board, which has raised interest from the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Teverson. The Cabinet Office and Defra, working with the Treasury, are currently establishing the new board to oversee strategic, crosscutting climate adaptation and resilience issues and drive further government action to increase UK resilience to climate change.
Membership has not yet been determined but it will be made up of representatives from the key departments across government on the issue of climate resilience. This forum will of course work closely with existing cross-government climate governance, aligning climate adaptation to wider government priorities on net zero and the environment. At ministerial level, this work will continue to be considered as required by the relevant Cabinet committees.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Kakkar, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and others on heat and public health. Tackling the risks, including to public health, from overheating is of course a key priority for the Government. As a number of noble Lords cited, there were 2,803 excess deaths among those aged 65 and over following the heatwaves in 2022. A number of well-developed warning systems are already in place to alert the public and emergency responders to imminent threats of heatwaves.
The Met Office issued a new extreme heat warning service in June 2021, designed to work alongside the UK Health Security Agency’s health alert system. As outlined in the third national adaptation programme, the Government will implement the adverse weather and health plan published in April this year to support local and national organisations in preparing and building for and responding to future adverse weather events to protect lives and promote health and well-being. This includes provisions to cascade support and guidance to care home managers in the event of extreme weather events such as heatwaves.
In October last year, the Health Security Agency launched its Centre for Climate and Health Security with a mission to deliver a step change in our capabilities in this area. That centre is now leading UKHSA’s climate health activity, providing a focus for partnerships and collaboration with academia, local authorities and other public sector organisations.
In addition to that, NHS England is developing an interactive climate change risk assessment tool to support the identification of local climate change risks to the NHS—I think that addresses one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. Finally, NHS England will include adaptation measures in the NHS standard contract for NHS buildings and services from this year and include adaptation measures within NHS building standards to increase the uptake of adaptation planning and activity.
On housing, DLUHC implemented Approved Document O of the building regulations in June 2022 to limit excess heat and solar gains across all new residential buildings. DLUHC and the building safety regulator will investigate overheating risk in homes that have been created through a material change of use in 2022-24
On climate change and disease, and another point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, the Government are monitoring the occurrence of vector-borne diseases—VBDs—including the number and size of outbreaks, to improve our understanding of the changing distribution and human cases to manage impacts. Defra will develop new tools for assessing the impact of extreme weather events and projecting the influence of climate change on plant pests by 2026. It will conduct a study on the importance of microclimate by 2025 and invest in a research programme on climate change and vector-borne disease. UKHSA will reduce future risks by maintaining and expanding the UK’s surveillance system for ticks and mosquitoes to achieve rapid detection and control of non-native vectors and raise awareness of VBDs.
I turn to points made by a number of noble Lords regarding homes. We are of course committed to ensuring that all homes are fit for the future in a changing climate. To achieve that in all new homes, we have updated building regulations this year to reduce excess heat and unwanted solar gains in all new residential buildings. For existing buildings, we are undertaking a programme of research to fill evidence gaps in our understanding of the existing building stock’s vulnerability to climate hazards and the methods that can be used to most effectively minimise overheating.
On points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Lucas relating to our combined efforts on climate adaptation and mitigation, adaptation and net zero in fact go hand in hand. Achieving net zero actually requires adaptation. We have a huge opportunity to make substantial net-zero investments that are resilient to current and future climate change risks, and doing so, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, can prevent higher future costs.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that delivering net zero is of course vital to this Government—as well as being a legal commitment. That is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister set up the department that I am a proud to be a Minister of, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. As the House will no doubt get sick of hearing me say, our track record on this is better than those of the vast majority of other comparator countries, including, for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, countries that have Greens in government. As the Prime Minister confirmed today, we will continue to make progress towards our net-zero ambitions in a proportionate and pragmatic way.
I actually agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his maiden speech—that the evidence clearly suggests that it is cheaper to invest early, anticipating and preparing for risks, than to live with the costs of inaction by rebuilding, recovering and compensating for losses. That is why we have already committed significant government investment to a range of adaptation actions. I entirely accept that it is the role of noble Lords to call for even more money to be spent, but we are already investing considerable sums.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned rising sea levels and flood defences. I can tell him that the Government are investing £5.2 billion in flooding and coastal erosion management programmes, precisely to protect the thousands of homes and businesses that are at risk.
We are also investing in nature—a point made by a number of other noble Lords—with more than £750 million in the Nature for Climate fund driving £2.2 billion of accelerated investment through the Plan for Water—a point also raised by a number of noble Lords—to help to secure a resilient, clean and plentiful supply of water now and in the future.
In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, set out the importance of measuring the outcomes of our actions on adaptation. The Government are committed to monitoring the actions in NAP3 over the five-year programme timescale. To support that, NAP3 includes an annexe dedicated to outlining our approach. Monitoring, evaluation and learning are of course fundamental.
The Climate Change Committee will continue to assess the Government’s progress on adapting to a changing climate in its biennial progress reports on the UK’s current national adaptation programme. In our view, that is the best measure as an independent assessment of government progress against the objectives that we ourselves have outlined in NAP3. To help to support that work, Defra is designing and monitoring an evaluation framework to inform the Climate Change Committee’s first progress report on NAP3, which is due in 2025.
In response to the concerns from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about our continued commitment to the International Climate Fund, I can tell him that the UK ICF climate finance strategy includes a commitment to spend £11.6 billion between 2021 and 2026, with a balance between adaptation and mitigation measures. That includes targeting priority regions and sectors to enhance locally led adaptation, and supporting many overseas Governments to help them to increase their climate resilience. It also includes a commitment to investing at least £3 billion of international climate finance in development solutions that protect and restore nature. That commitment was repeated in NAP3, which was published last week.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned the Thames Barrier. I point out to the noble Lord that the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan, which is the first adaptive flood risk management strategy of its kind, allows us to plan, monitor and review how we adapt to flood and climate risks to the end of the century and beyond. In May this year, the Environment Agency published an updated plan which confirms that we remain on the right pathway and that current plans for maintenance, repair and improvement of flood defences remain the best value for money.
I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, on global food security and climate change. The UK is stepping up to address international food security, and we are calling for all countries to keep food trade flowing—protectionism is in nobody’s interest. At the World Bank and the IMF’s spring meetings in April, the UK and our partners secured the largest ever financial commitment from the World Bank of $170 billion until the end of June 2023, to support countries faced with economic hardships as a direct result of the Russian invasion and its impact on the world. Together with G7 allies, we are discussing Germany’s proposal for a G7 global alliance on food security to help to scale up a rapid needs-based co-ordinated response, while building on current food security architecture and avoiding a fragmented global response.
More locally, here in the UK the Government are committed to ensuring a resilient food supply, which includes considering the impacts of climate change on domestic food production and its consequent impact on international supply chains. Securing a resilient food supply for the UK by backing British farmers and our rural communities was at the heart of this Government’s manifesto. It is why we have committed to maintaining the £2.4 billion annual farming budget, to help support farmers to become more productive and profitable. We are actively co-ordinating work across the food supply chain to strengthen resilience planning, which will help supply chains respond to climate and other emerging risks. The United Kingdom Food Security Report is a triannual statistical report required under the Agriculture Act 2020. The next report, due in 2024, will continue to improve our understanding of climate risks to UK food security.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed towards examples from the USA’s Inflation Reduction Act and the EU’s net-zero recovery plan. I can tell the noble Baroness that, since 2010, the UK has been much more successful than both the EU and the US. We have secured nearly £200 billion-worth of public and private investment in low-carbon energy. Obviously, we are pleased to see that both the EU and the US are now trying to follow our lead. The UK’s innovative approach, such as the contracts for difference scheme, is now being copied across the word, so successful has it been. That investment is 50% higher than the US achieved as a share of GDP, and that is why 40% of our power came from renewables last year, which is twice the figure the US achieved. The amount of renewable power is increasing all the time.
Let me shock the House and agree with a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I realise that this runs the risk of destroying her social media profile, but she was right in some of the points that she made about the oceans. Through the Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership, we are improving our understanding of the impact of climate change and rising sea levels. MCCIP engages with a wide range of scientific authors to supply policymakers and the public with updates on the current and predicted impacts of climate change. Defra intends to manage impacts on our fisheries by investing in the creation and restoration of blue carbon habitats, managing anthropogenic pressures in the marine environment and taking advantage of the opportunities posed by climate change for fisheries, such as projected movements of species.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for his considered points on the risk that climate change poses to intertidal habitats and the benefits to be derived from their effective conservation and management. Again, Defra will continue to manage and, where appropriate, to reduce non-climate pressure on blue-carbon habitats to help protect them and build their resilience. Our target is that 70% of designated features in marine protected areas will be in favourable condition by 2042, with the remainder in recoverable condition. Following the designation of the first three highly protected marine areas in English water, Defra now intends to identify further suitable sites for consultation and potential designation.
Finally, on the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about climate change and national security, I point out that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy recently conducted an important inquiry on precisely that topic. I can tell him that, in response, the UK Government’s resilience framework published in December last year set out their plan to strengthen the systems and capabilities that underpin our collective resilience to all risks to our security, including that of climate change.
I am running out of time, so I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this important debate. The publication of the third national adaptation programme marks an important step at the beginning of five years of concerted action across all parts of government and society to strengthen the resilience of the nation to the changing climate. As this will be my last appearance at the Dispatch Box before the Recess, I will, for a change, agree with the Opposition—specifically, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson—by wishing all noble Lords a fantastic summer and a very restful period before we resume in the autumn.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for very long, bearing in mind the late hour. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate; we have had some fantastic contributions covering a wide variety of topics. I thank the Minister for his wide-ranging responses to the points raised. I also join others in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on his truly excellent maiden speech. I look forward to many future contributions from him on matters to do with the environment and, no doubt, other topics of importance.
I also acknowledge the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I had the honour of serving on the Climate Change Committee under his chairmanship for a number of years. I do not know which of us was more alarmed when we found that on many occasions, perhaps even on most occasions, we tended to agree with each other—but we were always on the right side when we agreed. I acknowledge his tremendous contribution to the Climate Change Committee and the pleasure I had in serving under his chairmanship.
I just want to very briefly refer to three points mentioned in the debate. One—which I think many noble Lords including the Minister effectively responded to—is this notion that it is either mitigation or adaptation. I am sorry to say that the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Lucas, seemed to feel that you could do one but not the other, and that is clearly not the case. They are both needed.
The second point again has been dealt with by a number of speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Teverson: the deaths from cold and heat. It is a peculiar kind of levelling-up argument to say, “More people are dying from cold. Therefore, we can allow the heat deaths to go up”. Perhaps one way of emphasising the bizarreness of that assertion is if you consider that last year 1,675 people died as a result of being killed on our roads. Compare that with the 86,000 deaths that arose as a result of bad diets in this country, according to the Global Burden of Disease study. Does that mean we should allow road deaths to increase and not worry about them, maybe deregulating to allow people to drink and drive and drive too fast in speed-limited areas? Clearly not: we bear down on all causes of death because every death, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, is a tragedy for the families whose loved ones have gone away.
My very final point is about this figure of a cost of maybe 1% to 2% of GDP by 2050 for mitigation. When I was on the Climate Change Committee and it produced this figure, I almost asked, “Is it a big or a small number? How do we know?” One way of expressing it is this: if we reckon we ever get back to a trend of 2% growth per year in GDP, a cost of 1% by 2050 means we will delay until June 2050 being as rich as we would have been in January 2050—a tragedy for all of us: six months of being that bit poorer. When we throw out numbers as a percentage of GDP, we have to be careful about what they actually mean.
Having said that, I reiterate my thanks and wish all noble Lords, as others have done, a very relaxing and pleasant summer break.