Biocidal Products: Hand and Body Washes

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness obviously has given us very good advice on this issue. There is no need for many of these products to be on the market. There is a challenge that they are increasingly on the market, particularly after Covid. The Government are continuing to keep the new products under review and the opinions of the scientific advisory group on chemical safety will continue to drive our view—but the noble Baroness has given very good advice about soap and water.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, we are bombarded with television adverts for products to ensure that our homes smell floral and that every germ is wiped from kitchen surfaces, including the trays of babies’ high chairs. While it is important that bacteria and viruses are kept at bay, a little dirt is often a good thing. Little is known of the effects of antimicrobial products in toxic biocidal products. In October 2022, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee warned of the danger of these substances. Will the Government support the PMB on this subject when it comes forward?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about the marketing of some of these products. There are requirements, under the cosmetic regulation requirements, to make sure that such products are advertised appropriately, and there is enforcement by local trading standards offices to make sure that that is the case. We are looking at the Private Member’s Bill in detail and will come to a view on it in due course.

Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

At end to insert “but this House regrets that the new growth duty imposed on Ofwat could seriously impact its ability to take enforcement action against polluting water companies, and further regrets the failure of the Government to prioritise the sanctioning of polluters and the cleanliness of waterways.”

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024 and the draft Growth Duty: Statutory Guidance Refresh which accompanies it. I congratulate him on his enthusiasm.

Economic growth is important, but not at any cost. Although interested in the work of Ofcom and Ofgem, I am speaking this evening only to the issues as they relate to Ofwat and the water industry. I am indebted to the Wildlife and Countryside Link for its briefing and to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing this to the attention of the House. It is certainly of great interest to the public.

Many of your Lordships have expressed concern over the state of our waterways, lakes and rivers for some time. The public are also very concerned about the level of pollution continually flowing into what was once sparkling, clear water in which fish and wildlife could thrive but is now stinking and discoloured. Ofwat has struggled to ensure that the water companies fulfil their duties to provide clean water and effective disposal of sewage.

During many debates, the issue has been raised of withholding dividend payment to shareholders and bonuses to chief executives and directors of polluting water companies as a means of getting them to realise that their duties extended to the public, as well as to their shareholders. Customers of water and sewerage companies are finding their bills increasing, but the quality of the water in our waterways is decreasing daily. This order makes it harder for Ofwat to take enforcement action against polluting water companies, as this could be construed as hindering the growth of those companies. This is something of a gift to the three opposition parties in this Chamber in the run-up to the general election.

My main purpose this evening is to press for this order to be withdrawn. If that is not successful, then I would wish for the accompanying draft statutory guidance to be significantly amended. Unless this happens, it is extremely likely that Ofwat will be hindered in its ability to tackle freshwater pollution and other sources of environmental harm, such as unsustainable levels of abstraction.

The order significantly shifts water regulation away from environmental considerations. Over recent years, as new data is collected, it is emerging that the level of freshwater pollution and unsustainable abstraction caused by water companies has reached an all-time high. There is strong public support and political call for tighter regulation of water companies to prevent further environmental harm.

We had seen Defra appearing to be responsive to this, echoed in the 2023 Plan for Water, which pledged

“to address sources of pollution, and boost our water supplies through more investment, tighter regulation, and more effective enforcement.”

That is good so far. However, the order we are debating this evening from the Department for Business and Trade moves in the opposite direction, towards lighter regulation, in the hope of boosting economic growth. The Minister makes a very good case for this. As the Wildlife and Countryside Link says:

“Framing non-economic regulation as a burden on business rarely spells good news for the environment.”


I have the overwhelming impression that Defra has been lent on by the DBT. Has the 25-year environment plan been shelved completely? It is difficult to equate the DBT imposition of a growth duty, which is designed to lighten the burden of regulation on the water industry, with Defra’s commitment to tighten regulation of the same industry. When asked by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about this, the DBT responded that

“the growth duty will not take precedence over other duties”,

and the Minister has reiterated that this evening. However, I remain unpersuaded, as do others. Is regulation to be tightened to help protect the quality of the water in our chalk streams, lakes and rivers, or is it to be sacrificed to increase shareholder dividends? Can the Minister help us with this dichotomy?

Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords for their contributions, especially the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who has long been a champion of dealing with sewage overflow discharges and getting the water companies into a decent state. The economic growth of water companies will be achieved only when they invest in improving sewage overflows, ensuring developers separate surface water from foul wastewater, and when Ofwat is empowered to take stringent action against polluting water companies.

As I said earlier, my main purpose was to press for this order to be withdrawn—that was not successful—and then for the accompanying draft guidance to be significantly amended, especially as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has indicated. Growth in the water industry has a place, but regulators, especially Ofwat, must be able to take action against those water companies.

The Minister has mentioned the millions that have been returned to water customers as a result of fines, but this is paltry in comparison to the billions that have been paid to directors and shareholders of water companies, with no account taken of the sewage discharges into our waterways, instead of investing in improvements in infrastructure.

I and my colleagues on these Benches are naturally disappointed that the Minister is unable to agree to our reasonable request, and I feel certain that the public and others will be similarly disappointed. This is a matter about which I feel extremely strongly—so strongly that were it not for the fact that this is the first day back after the Recess, and that there are important votes tomorrow, I would have wished to divide the Chamber. However, I feel certain that we will be return to this issue before too long, perhaps when the White Paper is published. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my regret amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to support Amendments 99 to 101 in this group, to which I have added my name. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, have very clearly set out the arguments and the rationale for our amendments, so I will not go into the same detail.

I thank the Minister for his time and that of his officials in meeting with those of us who have signed these amendments, and for his letters clarifying the position. We are grateful for the Government’s movement on several of the issues we raised in Committee. They were not actually raised by us—because of other circumstances, none of us was able to be here—but they were ably covered by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

Amendments 99 and 100 raise the issue of how trading standards operate across borders throughout the country. This is causing them considerable concern, and I will not repeat what has already been said, except to say that trading standards are a vital local authority service, but not one that attracts the same level of support as children’s services or disability services. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.

Local authority budgets are stretched beyond what is needed to make many vital services safe for the consumer. On Amendment 101, trading standards needs support in order to operate as effectively and efficiently as it can to protect the public. Requesting documents by post is more cost effective than going to the trouble of crossing the country to fetch documents. Trading standards needs to be able to operate effectively across the whole UK, and I support this amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is very good to see the full team back on the trading standards amendments. I congratulate all three noble Lords on their championing of trading standards. They need the powers that are being argued for in these amendments; they are the unsung champions of the consumer, and we should support them.

My main purpose in rising is to speak to Amendments 69, 91, 92 and 152. As regards Amendment 69, on misleadingly similar parasitic packaging, it was encouraging to hear the Minister confirm in Committee that the prohibition of misleading actions in Clause 224 and the banned practice in paragraph 14 of Schedule 19 will address the long-standing unaddressed practice of misleadingly similar packaging.

However, those provisions matter little if they are not enforced. During consultations and the debate on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, the then Government stressed that public enforcement would be effective and efficient. This has not proved to be the case, with just one enforcement action by trading standards in 2008—albeit a successful one. If shoppers are to be protected from this misleading practice, there must be a realistic expectation that the Bill’s provisions will be enforced.

Historically, the Government have placed the duty on public enforcers. That is unrealistic, as trading standards face diminishing resources. The CMA stated clearly that misleadingly similar packaging is a consumer protection, not an IP, issue, following its investigation of the groceries market in 2008. Yet is has undertaken no hard or soft enforcement and did not include it in its recent scrutiny of the grocery sector; there is no sign that it will take a different approach in the future. There are no other realistic public enforcement options available. For the Bill to make a difference, it is essential that affected branded companies are granted powers to bring civil cases using the Bill’s provisions on the specific practice of misleadingly similar packaging alone. It has been ignored by public enforcers for the last 15 years, despite the many examples that appear year on year. Granting affected brand owners such powers would mean that shoppers would have the protection envisaged by the Bill, and affected brand owners would have more effective redress at no cost to the taxpayer.

Amendments 91 and 92 concern an area of concern for the retail industry, expressed by its representative body, the British Retail Consortium, in which I was an active participant more years ago than I care to remember. The well-established and well-used primary authority system enables a business to request assured advice from a primary authority that it has appointed. Provided that the business follows the advice, it cannot be prosecuted by any local authority for its actions. Under the Bill, the CMA will receive additional powers on consumer protection, whereby it will move to administrative fines that are potentially very high. I am informed that the CMA currently refuses either to provide assured advice of its own or to accept primary authority advice. It says that it may not agree with the advice and that it would be too costly, ignoring the fact that it is at a cost to the business. That undermines the primary authority system and will do so even further when the CMA receives its new fining powers because businesses will feel unable to rely totally on primary authority advice for what they are doing in the overlapping areas.

The amendments attempt to deal with that, either by requiring the CMA to provide assured advice itself, as set out in Amendment 91, or, perhaps more practically, by accepting primary authority advice as binding up to the point that it may be repealed if it is shown to be inaccurate, as set out in Amendment 92. That would mean that a business could rely on it for anything it does up to any repeal. It should also be remembered that the CMA can, if it wishes, act as a supporting regulator, whereby it can be called on to provide its view to a primary authority when that authority is looking at providing advice in an area of relevance and overlap to the CMA.

Finally, it should be noted that the CMA has decided to provide what is, in effect, assured advice on competition matters in the sustainability area; namely, it has agreed not to prosecute a business that seeks its advice and follows it in a small area on the competition side. This means that, in principle, the CMA does not seem to be opposed to such an approach. Green claims on the consumer side are a key area of uncertainty for business, an area where assured advice would in fact be most useful.

I turn to my final amendment, Amendment 152. As I explained in Committee, standard essential patents are patents that are necessary to implement an industry standard, such as wifi or 5G. Because the market is locked into a standard, and to prevent abuse of the market power that this situation conveys, SEP owners are required to license their SEPs on fair terms. Unfortunately, there is widespread abuse of this monopoly power by SEP holders. The principal issue raised with me by the Fair Standards Alliance is the threat of injunctions; the costs to many businesses can be ruinous. This tactic not only threatens innovation by UK businesses but represents a strategic risk for UK priorities, such as 5G infrastructure diversification and smart energy network security, by limiting the competing players. The availability of injunctions for SEPs gives foreign SEP holders the ability to prevent others in the UK from entering, succeeding and innovating in those markets.

The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, gave a somewhat encouraging response in Committee—I keep using the word “encouraging” about his responses, although I keep hoping for better—to the effect that the Government would set out their thinking in the very near future, and that that would include the question of injunctions.

After many months of consultation, the IPO has published its 2024 forward look on this issue. It has reported its findings to Ministers and has agreed key objectives concerning SEPs. Those are

“helping implementers, especially SMEs, navigate and better understand the SEPs ecosystem and Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing … improving transparency in the ecosystem, both pricing and essentiality; and … achieving greater efficiency in respect of dispute resolution, including arbitration and mediation”.

Although the IPO has confirmed that SMEs are especially disadvantaged by the current SEP regulations, it states, disappointingly, on injunctions that

“we have concluded that we will not be consulting on making legislative changes to narrow the use of injunctions in SEPs disputes”,

with very limited justification for the decision, saying simply that it was taken after

“careful consideration of the evidence, operation of relevant legal frameworks and international obligations”.

The Coalition for App Fairness has pointed out to me that a day after the IPO announcement, the European Parliament voted by a large majority to approve its own SEP regulation. The EU framework will include the creation of an SEP register, database and essentiality checks; a defined maximum total royalty for an SEP; and an independent, expert-led conciliation process to establish the fair price for SEPs, which, crucially, will block the use of injunctions while the process is taking place. That seems entirely appropriate. The EU has proved that such a regulatory regime can be delivered; why cannot the UK Government, with all the freedom of Brexit? What is the basis for the IPO decision? What evidence, legal frameworks and international obligations prevent it from dealing with and legislating on injunctions? Why cannot the IPO likewise establish a truly fair SEP licensing ecosystem?

The least the Government can do is give more detail to the many SMEs affected by this decision. The forward look states, rather lamely:

“The IPO will continue engagement with relevant industry and institutions to continue to inform our ongoing policy development and implementation of those actions set out above”.


What on earth does that entail? That is pretty mealy-mouthed. What benefit will there be from that?

--- Later in debate ---

This clearly is to the harm of consumers, who are unable to pursue their statutory rights if they do not know with whom they are dealing or how to contact them. It should be noted that reputable traders will give the information identified as material information as a matter of course, so this amendment would not impact honest, law-abiding traders.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I put my name to two sets of amendments in this group: Amendments 104 and 118 on the right to repair, and Amendments 109 and 115 on trading standards issues.

I will speak first to the right to repair. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, set out clearly the rationale behind these amendments, and I know that she has been working with the Minister and officials to try to get some traction on this issue. Part of my role in the House, for my party, is waste: how to minimise it, how to deal with it when it is created, and how to prevent it being created in the first place.

I was also brought up to repair what was broken and give items a new lease of life; the Screwfix catalogue is always lying around somewhere in our house. If you are going out for the evening and have a full skirt, which is no longer fashionable and can be unpicked, it is relatively easy to sew it back up into something more appealing, ready to wear out and wow your friends in the evening. This is not the case when a washing machine goes wrong and starts to flood the kitchen floor.

The amendment is very detailed and gives plenty of time for manufacturers to adapt their practices and start thinking again about abandoning their wasteful practices, which force the hard-pressed consumer to buy a replacement for an item that, with a little thought, could well have been repaired and lasted much longer, instead of joining the heap of white goods at the local household waste recycling centre and then landfill. The right to be able to repair an electrical or electronic item or household product should be universal.

The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, set out the arguments for Amendments 109 and 115 extremely well. While I understand that the Government do not believe that fake reviews should be a criminal offence, it is difficult to understand why, if there are currently 31 schedule practices, of which 29 are both civil and criminal breaches of the CPRs, two, including fake reviews, should be subject to civil breaches only. Of the 29, it is up to the judgment of the officer whether they take civil or criminal action. Many of the “fake review” fraudulent claims and activities are deliberately targeted at children and the elderly—the most vulnerable in our society. Civil action does not give the protection they deserve or require.

I have received a contribution from the National Trading Standards eCrime Team; it is a case study. A consumer is looking to buy a dehumidifier, so googles “dehumidifiers”; Google or other search engines show top results at the top of the page, which are usually Google adverts. The advert shows a 5-star-rated product. The consumer clicks on that product link, which takes them to a website that spotlights reviews that look genuine about how amazing the product is. The consumer buys the product and the money is taken from their bank, but it is a totally fake site with fake reviews and the products do not actually exist. There are 600 cases of consumers being tricked by fake reviews on this site and product alone; there is a detriment here of £90,000. There are multiple examples of this with lots of different products. Consumers are being drawn to sites using fake reviews and handing over their money, and the products do not arrive as they do not exist. I am sympathetic to the Minister’s wish not to increase the number of activities that come under the “criminal activity” banner but remain convinced that action is needed on this issue.

On invitation to purchase and the subject of price, I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification but remain concerned that a rogue trader will make a particularly good case that the price being quoted is the total cost to the consumer, only later to add in other costs and taxes. This is not something we are used to in this country. In America I can decide to buy something for $25, having looked at the price label, but when I get to the checkout I find I am charged $27.50, as both local and national tax have been added. All Americans are used to this; it is only the uninformed tourist who gets caught out, but usually only once.

I remain convinced that those targeted by rogue traders are those who may not be aware that VAT or material costs are not always included in the initial price quoted. Will the Minister see whether there is some way in which our request on this issue can be accommodated?

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, as the third of the consumer protection enforcement team mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson, I have added my name to Amendments 109 and 115.

Amendment 109 concerns the issue of fake reviews; this has already been well set out by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. It is worth looking again at Hansard and the example from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, of the live evidence we have received from the National Trading Standards eCrime Team as to the sites where people are handing over their money as we speak, thinking they have read a legitimate review and bought an amazing product, but the product does not exist.

I recognise the move that the Government have made in adding fake reviews to the list of 31 commercial practices that are, in all circumstances, considered unfair and banned practices. However, trading standards sees the practice of giving fake reviews as clearly fraudulent in nature, and therefore it should be a criminal as well as a civil offence, if the circumstances are correct for that judgment to be made. At the moment, we are confined to looking at fake reviews as a civil offence.

Fake reviews are also a growing distortion of the online marketplace. They are unfair to legitimate businesses and completely deceptive of consumers. This amendment is important in making fake reviews a criminal as well as a civil offence. I hope that the Minister understands the seriousness of this—I am sure he does—and will think again about his stance on this amendment.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 31st January 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much like Amendment 134 and hope that the Government will find their way to supporting it. It seems to me important that, since it is well drafted, we should go down this route of making sure that claims of environmental effectiveness are real.

In that context, I was delighted by the exposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on Amendment 109, which makes it clear that it is a bit of greenwashing: a Labour Government, should we ever have one, would not put this amendment into effect because it is so broad, all-encompassing and dangerous that they would never do it. Labour is merely proposing it now so that it can seem a bit green.

I like the electrical repair direction. When I moved my daughter into her student flat, I was able to test the fire alarm by turning on the Hoover. I am cautious about amateurs repairing electrical goods and, if we did anything along that line, I would want to make sure that it was focused on professional repairs. It is iniquitous that mobile phones are being made with glued-in batteries so that you cannot renew them. Therefore, I very much support the direction that my noble friend Lord Holmes has taken, as something that is implementable now—I like its breadth too—to make sure that consumers are given the information about whether the product they are buying can be repaired and, therefore, will have a good second-hand value and a long life. As we start to focus on the iniquity of throwing stuff away, it will start to move manufacturers, because such products will become more popular.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on Amendments 128A and 145A—inserting a new clause on the right to repair—to which I added my name. The noble Baroness set out very clearly the arguments that support this detailed and transparent amendment. I regret that I was unable to take part at Second Reading.

I declare my interest in being married to an engineer who believes, as did my father before him, that everything should be capable of repair, and who suffers frustration and fury when he finds that a product has been designed in such a way as to deliberately prevent this from happening. “Planned obsolescence” is the phrase that manufacturers use to justify their manufacturing methods.

As a country, we are already committed to the right to repair through EU regulations of 21 June. This is limited to fridges, dishwashers, washing machines and TVs. However, this provides no consumer protections on the cost of parts, and limits consumer rights of repair to a small number of specified operations. It deprives them of the right to buy parts or even see repair manuals. There is no timeline for extending the right to other electrical or electronic products. We need a general right to repair all electronic and electrical products now. Otherwise, we will wait until 2030 just to legislate for a few consumer products at a time. Consumers are struggling to make their money go round; repair and reuse would help them now.

The evidence suggests that the UK is falling behind. The EU has legislated for access to software updates for five years, and spare parts and manuals for mobile phones and tablets for at least seven years after a product is withdrawn. It mandates repairability information for consumers at the point of sale, and it is now in trilogues on a more far-reaching right to repair, including prioritising repair over replacement inside guarantee, and the right to repair at a reasonable cost outside guarantee.

As has been said, this is not limited to the EU. Six US states have already legislated for right to repair, with 10 more considering legislation to start this year. These right-to-repair laws cover a range of products, from smartphones to farm equipment, and offer consumers access to spare parts, tools, and repair information to enable repair for minimum periods.

The Government’s argument against this amendment is that it will be burdensome for manufacturers, especially smaller manufacturers, but its effect would be to require firms to retain some spare parts and manuals, and make arrangements for paid-for repair, as they already have to for some kitchen goods and TVs for five to seven years. This is not disproportionate.

Current restrictions on the right to repair favour larger firms over smaller employers, such as independent repair companies and parts suppliers. This is why the amendment proposes banning within one year the most egregious anti-competitive and anti-consumer measures pursued by larger firms. The legislation allows five years for the Government to legislate for the right to repair in order to get the legislation right. Were the Government minded, they could exclude the smallest manufacturers to give them more time to comply.

I am at a loss to see how this might stifle innovation by industry. The amendment would put consumers in the driving seat by enabling them to choose when to switch to more innovative products when it is in their interest, rather than be forced to do so by prohibitively expensive or unavailable spare parts, or by perfectly functional products that stop working only due to software updates. Surely the Government want the consumer to be in control.

The right to repair is genuinely popular. Research by Cardiff University found that 65% of respondents are regularly frustrated by products that break before they should; 62% believe products are currently too difficult to get repaired; 75% agree that the Government should require manufacturers to make products more repairable; and 85% support expanding the right to repair to cover all consumer products. Men’s sheds and repair shops are springing up all over the place in our market towns. Repair is popular.

I know from my own experience that a quote for a repair can be eye-watering and that I can buy a cheaper model that does the same job, especially when it comes to washing machines, dishwashers, and fridge-freezers. Households on tight budgets are forced into a cycle of regularly replacing cheap machines with new cheap machines, rather than repairing existing machines to keep them in use for longer. This also leads to the cost of disposal of the redundant machine, often resulting in fly-tipping—the scourge of the countryside.

Throwaway products are fuelling climate change, growing our toxic waste mountain and ripping off the British public. People are stuck in a cycle of throwing things away and then buying costly new electronics, which is bad for their wallets and bad for the environment. Right now, the UK is the second-largest producer of electronic waste in the world per capita, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said; it is worth repeating. Too often, inefficient waste management is prioritised over waste prevention. This has to be minimised. This amendment would address these issues.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 201 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, is very similar in essence to Amendments 128A and 145A. We support it as a means of ensuring that consumers are protected in terms of repair and maintenance.

Amendments 109 and 134, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, attempt to ensure that consumers are protected. They would help the country move towards net zero and would assist with climate change mitigation. Consumers are reliant on the information provided for them and this has to be accurate. Greenwashing tactics need addressing. Both the Government and the CMA must ensure greenwashing does not happen, or is at least minimised. We support all the amendments. We are all singing to the same tune; there is cross-party support across the Committee and I look forward to the Minister’s positive response.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

6: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Human rights impact assessment: indigenous and forest peoplesThe Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, within 24 months of the passing of this Act, a human rights impact assessment on the impact of UK CPTPP accession on indigenous and forest peoples in the respective CPTPP parties.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to perform a human rights impact assessment on the effect of UK CPTPP accession on indigenous and forest peoples.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 6, I wish also to speak to Amendment 12 in this group. Amendment 6 raises the issue of the displacement of indigenous people severely affected by deforestation resulting from the rush to clear forests for palm oil agriculture. The rainforests of the world are an essential source of carbon storage and provide homes to some of our most iconic species, which everyone is aware of. What is not so widely acknowledged is the effect that forest clearance has on the indigenous people who make their home in the forest. The CPTPP will remove tariffs on palm oil, making deforestation easier. The human cost will be devastating: nearly 1 billion people depend on the forests for their livelihood and 300 million people live in them. This displacement is enormous. An assessment of the impact on these people within 24 months of the passing of this legislation is essential. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

The World Wide Fund for Nature has identified that two of the 11 deforestation fronts are covered by the CPTPP. These 11 fronts will account for 80% of deforestation by 2030. The Government’s proposed deforestation due diligence only covers illegal deforestation in four linked commodities. The US FOREST Act covers six, and the EU deforestation regulations cover seven, with other countries going further. The UK is lagging behind in this vital area and needs to do much more to protect this dwindling resource. There has to be a more stringent process to ensure that deforestation does not totally destroy the homes of those who are less able to speak up for themselves. A review of the effect on these people is essential.

Amendment 12 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. She is unable to be present this afternoon and sends her apologies. I have added my name to this amendment, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, spoke knowledgeably and passionately to this amendment in Committee. The countries which the Government are planning to begin trading with do not have the same stringent rules on the use of pesticides and chemicals as we have. This will undermine and undercut our farmers. It will also put the population at risk.

There are 119 hazardous pesticides banned in the UK which are used in the countries covered by the CPTPP. The border checks which the Government are proposing are not sufficient to be able to prevent goods containing these toxic chemicals from entering the country and the food chain. Some of these pesticides are known to kill bee populations and destroy aquatic ecosystems. The paper border checks which the Government are proposing rely just on documentation. There will be no physical check of goods which may contain pesticides. The Pesticide Action Network found that grapes from CPTPP member countries New Zealand, Chile and Peru may contain 1,000 times the amount of iprodione than their UK equivalent. This is a fungicide linked to cancer. Are the Government really going to expose the population to these toxic chemicals without proper physical checks? A review of the impact within 12 months is again essential.

I shall also speak briefly in support of Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park. This again deals with adequate checks on goods containing sustainable palm oil. This is a vital amendment and I congratulate the noble Lord on bringing it forward. Had I realised early enough that he was putting down this amendment, I would have signed it. Its ethos is Liberal Democrat party policy and something we would definitely have wanted to support.

As has often been the case in the past, a new product is found to be useful worldwide and relatively cheap to produce. There is a rush to produce this product, with little thought given to the long-term consequences of its use. Such is the case with palm oil. It is a new wonder product that everyone wants; it is relatively cheap to produce and grows easily. However useful palm oil is, and however cheap its production, it must be sustainable. Wholesale deforestation in order to grow palm oil is extremely short-sighted, especially as we all recognise the value of the carbon storage capacity of trees. It is ironic that, at a time in the UK when the Government are setting ambitious targets for tree planting, they are also rushing to sign up to trade deals with countries which are destroying their forests to grow palm oil. I fully support this amendment and hope that the Minister will listen to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and agree to his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have covered a great quantity of points. I remain available after this debate to discuss anything specific, but I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, to withdraw her amendment so that we can move forward to the next stage of the debate.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has allowed us to look at the impact of a number of issues around the CPTPP. I thank everybody for doing that.

I am particularly concerned about the announcement by the Secretary of State at the Oxford Farming Conference about labelling. I find it astounding that a label might say that the goods have not been produced to the standards that are pertinent here. I agree that it would be much better if those goods were not imported in the first place rather than relabelled when they got here.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his support. It is really important that we deal with the issue of making sure that iconic animals do not lose their habitat. An 80% loss of habitat means that we will no longer have those iconic species.

The Minister is very excited about the effects of the Bill and the opportunities it will produce for farmers. I am afraid I am not quite as enthusiastic as he is. I hope it will be exactly as he says, but I am afraid that, as far as I am concerned, the jury is out. I will have to wait to see what happens.

On pesticides, I cannot see that testing by taking at face value a form that has been filled in, and not doing any spot testing of actual products, will ensure that toxins from the other countries we will be trading with will not find their way here. The importation of goods with pesticides in will damage our farmers. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for giving us the powerful example of what happened to pig farmers when pigmeat produced in substandard conditions was imported into this country. It undercut our pig farmers, who were absolutely wiped out.

Having said all that, I think I will have to wait to see what happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 14th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I speak first to Amendment 35 in my name. The Government are keen to strike deals with countries with which we have not previously had economic trade, especially in farming. While it is important for the economy of both countries involved, it is also important to ensure that our UK producers, farmers and industry are not disadvantaged by these trade deals. A published impact assessment is essential for public confidence to be maintained.

Currently the UK farming industry is undergoing a period of considerable change. It is being weaned off the basic payment scheme, which was based on the amount of land owned, and on to ELMS, which should see greater benefits for the environment and biodiversity. Both these steps will eventually be good, but the current state of flux around the funding under ELMS is unsettling at a time when the BPS is being phased out quite rapidly, as some farmers believe.

Our UK farmers produce their crops and raise their animals to extremely high standards. These standards are not necessarily replicated in other member countries of the CPTPP. Sow stalls, which are banned in the UK, are used by CPTPP members. This is just one example where, if the British public were aware of it, it would lead to an outcry. The animal and horticulture imports that are likely to come under the new trade deals may have been exposed to pesticides and fertilisers which are banned in this country—I will speak more on this later. These imports will have been produced at a lower cost than the UK farmer can meet, and our farmers will be at a disadvantage as a result of being undercut.

There is an impression among some people that farmers are all wealthy landowners. This is not the case. There are many smaller farmers who struggle to make a decent living out of the land. In the days before universal credit, I knew a farmer who earned so little from his land that, had he chosen to claim, he would have been entitled to income support.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a pleasure to take my first Bill through your Lordships’ House. I thank noble Lords for the constructive approach that has been evident throughout the Bill’s passage. We have had robust discussions and debates on the Bill. Likewise, I have had the privilege in recent weeks of engaging with Peers outside the Chamber, and I have benefited from those conversations, which have been in-depth and valuable. The experience, diligence and practical knowledge of noble Lords have challenged and tested the strength of the Bill and its underlying trade deals. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this provides reassurance to the public on the quality of our democratic processes, our accountability and the constructive challenge function of your Lordships’ House. It remains for me only to give a few specific thanks to noble Lords and others before we complete our consideration of the Bill.

First, I thank the Opposition spokespersons, the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Purvis of Tweed, for the constructive way that they have continued to approach the scrutiny of the Bill—as well as the additional work outside in engaging with our various high commissioners, which I personally appreciated very much.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for the valuable conversations that we have shared on this legislation and her continued championing of our important agricultural sector. I hope that she has been reassured throughout the Bill’s passage through this House of the Government’s commitment to maintaining our high food standards and safeguarding measures for this sector and UK farmers within both deals. It was due to the scrutiny of my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we identified the minor drafting error in Clause 2(1)(a), which has subsequently been corrected.

I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley, whose knowledge, frankly, makes my job all the easier as he makes the points in my speech before I get the chance to do so. It is absolutely right that I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and all the members of the IAC for their considered input.

This has been very much a team effort. Behind the scenes, the extraordinary Bill team have put in an unbelievable amount of effort. My thanks go to: James Copeland, Thomas Bingham, Donald Selmani, Jack Collins, Alex Garcia-Pineiro and Catherine Ajani. I also thank my private secretary Sehar Shaheryar and other officials who make up my private office, led by Simon Moore.

Finally, I thank the parliamentary staff, the doorkeepers and the clerks for their professionalism and continued support and to your Lordships’ House.

The Bill provides a power to give effect to our procurement commitments within these agreements, improving three areas of our existing procurement legislation in the UK. We will see benefits to our public services and companies trading in these partner countries—ultimately, unlocking billions in government contracts in a more secure way than ever before.

In conclusion, the Bill will achieve the essence of our post-Brexit vision of Britain. Some noble Lords have questioned the presence of the Government’s trade agenda during the Bill’s passage. In response I say: here it is. These deals guarantee a global interconnectedness of trade deals, with the United Kingdom at the very heart of these new routes, meaning new opportunities for our businesses and citizens. This will result in new markets for our goods and services and new ways to travel and share our cultures. To our friends, trading partners, clients, suppliers, brothers and cousins in Australia and New Zealand, I say, “Hold tight! The UK is coming.” I reiterate my thanks one final time and, with that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Purvis, who is, unfortunately, unable to be here this afternoon. We thank the Minister for his comments, as well as his patience and expertise during the passage of this Bill. We thank the Bill team for their help and support, as well as the Labour Front Benches and Cross Benches. We also thank Elizabeth Plummer in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, without whose help I do not think that my noble friend Lord Purvis and I would have been where we are today. We support the passage of the Bill and thank the Minister for his help.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on steering his first Bill successfully through the House—my congratulations go too to the whole Bill team. I am grateful to him for the time he took at every stage to talk me through. He knows of my disappointment that the Scottish Government have withheld their consent, and that this is not the deal that the British farmers would have hoped for; but we live to fight another day and I look forward to future trade Bills coming through.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 14th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 4 and 5, in the name of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, to which I have added my name. It is clear that the Government are extremely keen to foster trade deals with any number of non-EU countries. It is also clear that this could be very beneficial to our British farmers if they are able to export their excellent world-class produce to new markets—provided that they are not bogged down with unnecessary and exhaustive paperwork.

However, Australian and New Zealand exporters will in fact gain far more than our UK counterparts. The main tariff reductions are on the UK side. Trade with the UK is likely to be a very small proportion of Australia and New Zealand’s trade; they have other trading nations much closer to their shores. Their animal welfare standards are not as high as those in the UK, and there are no safeguards against Australian imports after 15 years—sugar after eight years, and dairy after six years. Even the previous Secretary of State admitted that the current deal sold UK farmers short.

Regarding tariff quotas, in year 1 Australia will access 35,000 tonnes of beef quota with no duty. This is an estimated 10% of the UK’s total import requirements. This will rise to 30% of total import requirements by year 10, which will be more than 12% of total UK production. It appears that the Government’s aim is to reduce the profitability and viability of our beef farmers, who produce some of the very best beef in the world.