Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist and Lord Lansley

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Absolutely, we are very happy to meet on all these issues.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her full response to this debate, which admirably demonstrated the degree of consensus and agreement there is that this issue is both important and urgent, and that, as I think the noble Baroness put it, the planning system is not adapting. It is not securing the adaptation to climate change that we require or, arguably even more so, the mitigation of climate change. It is not even seeking in any substantial way to mitigate climate change. As the Government presently put it in the National Planning Policy Framework, the system is simply seeking to try to respond to the potential impacts of climate change. That is not sufficient; we require something more than that.

I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that there are 14 paragraphs about flooding and coastal erosion in the draft National Planning Policy Framework. The only reference I can see that might bear upon his concern is the reference to the risk of overheating from rising temperatures. There is nothing about a planning response to the risk of fires and wildfires in the way that my noble friend expressed.

I say to my noble friend the Minister that the point is that, if we could look at the National Planning Policy Framework and see that it set out in very clear terms how the planning system s to secure the necessary level of mitigation and adaptation to climate change, I do not think we would have an argument. We have an argument because we cannot look at it. Chapter 14 of the draft NPPF is simply about making the necessary adaptations to deal with the impacts of climate change. It does not say that the planning system should be seeking to shift in any major, radical way so as to reduce the contributions which development in this country makes to continuing climate change risk.

Indeed, where biodiversity is concerned, there is more in chapter 15. I will look at it very carefully to see whether the NPPF tackles that. However, in this debate, the next debate and a subsequent debate on the design code, we are all going to be trying to use amendments to this Bill to achieve things which ought to be, by the Government’s own admission, in the National Planning Policy Framework. They want to have general legislation which allows them to specify what should then happen, but we need to see it in there.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in her first speech asked when we are going to see the NPPF. My noble friend more or less said that it would be after we have finished with the Bill. That, I am afraid, will not wash. We have to see it before Report. If not, it is an inescapable conclusion that we will have to amend the Bill on Report in order to be sure that the subsequent instructions, as it were, to local authorities about what they need to do are clear from Parliament and the Government—otherwise it is simply left to the Government, and the Bill is silent. Where the environment is concerned, as things stand there are references to the Climate Change Act 2008, but the Government are proposing to leave them exactly as they are. The expectation is that, by doing the same thing as they did in the past, the results will be better. As Einstein might have said, that way lies madness. If we carry on doing the same things, we will get the same result. We have to think hard about how we do things differently.

I will return to this issue in the next group and in a subsequent one, but I think we have made our case to look at this again in the future. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 201.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist and Lord Lansley

Report stage
Monday 28th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

My Lords, this next group refers to utilities. Amendments 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 22, 169, 174, 180 and 184 relate to an exemption for utility activities exposed to competition. The amendments to Clause 5 and Schedule 4, and a consequential amendment to Schedule 2, are again in response to the concern of the DPRRC that the power to establish a procedure to exempt utilities subject to competition from the Bill amounted to a skeleton clause. The Government will replace this power with one that requires the exemptions to be made by secondary legislation under an affirmative procedure. This will afford Parliament greater scrutiny to review each exemption. The test to be satisfied for an exemption remains that there is fair and effective competition in the relevant utility market, and that entry to that market is unrestricted.

Noble Lords should note that Amendment 22 adds Part 2 to Schedule 4, which sets out the utility activities which are exempt from procurement regulations. These reflect exemptions that exist under the current regime, which are preserved by Amendment 169 in order that they are available under the Scottish procurement regulations.

Amendments 174, 180 and 184 ensure that the affirmative procedure applies to an exercise of the power.

Amendments 15 and 16 ensure that the definition of private utilities and contracting authority interact as intended and that a private utility is only a contracting authority in respect of the utility activities for which the utility has a special or exclusive right.

Amendments 18 and 19 revise the description of a utility activity in the transport sector in paragraph 4 of Schedule 4.

Amendments 56, 71 and 200 speed up procurements and reduce the burden for utilities using a utilities dynamic market—a UDM—by only requiring utilities to provide tender notices of upcoming procurements to suppliers on a UDM or appropriate part of a UDM, instead of having to publish notices. In practice, this means utilities can, for example, provide the tender notice to suppliers on the UDM as part of the associated tender documents as each procurement under the UDM is commenced.

In order to take advantage of this flexibility, the notice setting up the UDM must meet minimum information requirements, which will be set out in regulations under Clause 88. Utilities must specify in the UDM notice that only members of the UDM will be provided with tender notices. The notice setting up the UDM will be published continuously and will remain open so new members can join at any time. If accepted, they would then be entitled to receive tender notices.

Amendment 77 to Clause 48 will allow private utilities to adopt a voluntary standstill period to direct award contracts instead of a mandatory one. This means private utilities will take a risk-based decision on whether to apply a standstill period to a direct award procurement. It is in keeping with only regulating private utilities’ procurement to the extent necessary under our international obligations. I will turn to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley in my closing speech, having heard the points he raises. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, not least because she referred to Amendment 169 in her helpful introduction to these amendments on utilities. Happily, we have reached the end of the Bill quite early on; that amendment relates to the very last page—page 118—where, in the present draft of the Bill, Commission decisions relating to public contract regulations, utilities and so on were to be repealed. Her explanation is interesting, in that it retains these European Commission decisions as retained EU law for the benefit of the Scottish regime. I am slightly perplexed as to why they were to be repealed in the first place since, presumably, the Scottish regime would have required them for this purpose regardless. However, that is just a question and it is only a matter of curiosity that I ask it.

My Amendment 23 is an amendment to government Amendment 22. As my noble friend made clear, the DPRRC said that this was a skeleton clause and was particularly unhelpful because it disguised the fact that policy had not been developed. I do not know whether that is the case or not; the point is that Ministers have come forward with a proposal for how these exemption decisions should work in relation to utility activities. I remind noble Lords that there are activities, and there are utility activities. The effect of Schedule 2 is to make it clear that certain activities should not be regarded as utility activities because they are in fair and effective competition and there are no restrictions on entry to that market. The decisions that were made were about electricity, gas and oil extraction, production and generation.

That being the case, the policy decisions in government Amendments 17 and 22, which my noble friend has explained, have the effect in Amendment 22 of saying, “These are the existing exemption decisions”. Government Amendment 17 says that, in future, Ministers can add to them or subtract from them by regulation. The point of my Amendment 23 is to ask, “When Ministers were reaching a view as to how these exemption decisions should be made in future, why did they not look at the Competition and Markets Authority, which we have as our own creature for the making of competition-related decisions, and put to it the job of determining whether a given activity in the utilities sector—actually, it would also be true in other sectors if exemption decisions were sought—is in fair and effective competition and there are no restrictions to the market?”

If my noble friend says, “Ah, but when Ministers make regulations, they will of course take advice from the Competition and Markets Authority”, I will be very happy. If she does not say that, however, I will be nervous, because what is the point of having the Competition and Markets Authority able to make such decisions in lieu of what used to be the European Commission’s responsibility if Ministers are going to pre-empt it themselves? I hope that she will be able to give me that reassurance about the use of the CMA for making competition-related decisions.

Covid-19: Vaccines and Further Variants

Debate between Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist and Lord Lansley

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I can confirm that all those questions are considered in the round with the vaccine manufacturers we are in discussions with. As to the noble Baroness’s initial question, I shall write.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the availability of Evusheld for those for whom a vaccine is wholly ineffective or contraindicated. I add that on Monday a study by the Washington University School of Medicine demonstrated that Evusheld was effective in providing protection against all variants of omicron. We as a Government are lagging behind 21 other countries which have entered into contracts for the availability of this for pre-exposure prophylaxis for the severely immunocompromised. Will the Government now act to put that contract in place?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I cannot commit to act but we now have that on the record and I will take it back to the department and make that request directly.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Debate between Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist and Lord Lansley

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, particularly because, as far as I can tell, we are all agreed that ARIA should have the flexibility to do these things. Where we not quite all in the same place yet is that it seems to me that the legislation can make that clear and it would be helpful if it did. Maybe we will come back to it and my noble friend will enlighten me. She seemed to say that in paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 the reference to property encompasses intangible and intellectual property but the word “property” is not there. That is my point. The word “property” needs to be there in order for intangible and intellectual property to be encompassed within it.

There are circumstances—for example, where the Secretary of State makes grants to ARIA and where ARIA provides financial support—where my noble friend seems to be saying that it will have the flexibility to enter into all these agreements, to share its intellectual property, to secure the benefits and retain them and reinvest them but that does not need to be in the Bill. Yet, we have these places where there are little lists of what the conditions might be like or what the provision might include. They may be non-exhaustive lists but the only things that seem to be listed are things that constrain ARIA, rather than making it clear that intellectual property, which is at the heart of its activity, is something where it should absolutely have this kind of flexibility.

I know the Treasury would hate to have it in the Bill that ARIA can retain intellectual property revenues and reinvest them for its purposes but that is exactly why we should put it in the Bill. I think we will return to this issue. I gladly give way to my noble friend.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I reassure my noble friend that paragraph 17 is not an exhaustive list. ARIA can develop and exploit scientific knowledge and this covers it getting a patent, under Clause 2(1)(b). The supplementary powers in paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 1 allow acquisition and disposal of property including intellectual property—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Paragraph 17(1) allows anything.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Is that not the point?

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist and Lord Lansley

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment, which would require any Secretary of State and other Ministers of the Crown to have regard to the fisheries objectives in Clause 1 when negotiating international agreements relevant to fisheries. I note his concerns and appreciate his usual analytical approach in supporting his arguments. I support my noble friend’s desire to ensure that relevant international agreements support the achievement of the fisheries objectives. I reassure noble Lords that there are already provisions in the Bill, along with cross-Whitehall processes, that achieve this. I therefore think that this point is already covered.

As the House heard on Monday in relation to the amendments discussed then, policies on international negotiations on fisheries will be included in the joint fisheries statement, as international co-operation will be essential to achieving the objectives defined in Clause 1. Clause 10(1) requires fisheries authorities to exercise their functions in accordance with the policies in the joint fisheries statement, unless a relevant change of circumstances indicates otherwise.

As a matter of collective responsibility, all UK Government Ministers are required to abide by decisions on government policy. The joint fisheries statement will therefore be binding across government. In exercising their functions with regard to international negotiations, Ministers would have to do so in accordance with the policies in the joint fisheries statement, and thus the fisheries objectives.

My noble friend will also be aware, from his time in government and in the other place, that a proposed negotiating position is subject to government write-round as a matter of course. This ensures that, as part of collective responsibility, the interests of all Ministers are represented and incorporated into decisions, and collective agreement must be obtained.

If a negotiating position on a matter relevant to fisheries was proposed by another department which was contrary to the achievement of the fisheries objectives, the Defra Secretary of State would therefore have the opportunity to resolve this through Cabinet committee discussion. This established process provides a further safeguard to ensure that international negotiations undertaken by other departments, and which may have an indirect impact on fisheries matters—for example, negotiations relating to product labelling and product standards—have due regard to the fisheries objectives.

Further, it is the intention of the Bill to focus on fisheries management and fisheries policies. There is a risk that this amendment, as worded, would significantly broaden that scope, requiring any Minister in any department, during any negotiation, to consider the impact on fisheries, however tangential this might be. The combination of the provisions in the Bill regarding the joint fisheries statement, and the existing collective responsibility obligations on Ministers, ensures that Ministers involved in international negotiations will have regard to the fisheries objectives.

My noble friend mentioned the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s Statement in the other place, on 19 May. He said that:

“The EU, essentially, wants us to obey the rules of its club, even though we are no longer members, and it wants the same access to our fishing grounds as it currently enjoys while restricting our access to its markets.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/5/20; col. 503.]


The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was actually setting out the EU’s position, not advocating it as the UK Government’s position.

I would also like to mention at this point that we have had several rounds of discussions with Norway about our future fisheries relationship. Those discussions have been very constructive, and we look forward to concluding an agreement with Norway in the coming weeks. As my noble friend also observed, there are indeed grounds for optimism, about both pace and compromise, in our negotiations with the EU.

With this explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley]

I am most grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this short debate. It was an important one, not least for the assurances that my noble friend has given us in response. That was very helpful in making it clear how government processes will ensure that while the fisheries policy authorities might apply to the Secretary of State, they will be treated as the responsibility of government as a whole in any international negotiations relevant to fisheries policy.

In customary times, my noble friend Lord Naseby and I are neighbours on the Benches back here. In best “Yes Minister” fashion, I shall say that, in future, I will always have regard to his views and take them into account.

I completely understand what my noble friend said about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s remarks. He was describing the European Union’s position, and he was also describing the reality of negotiations. In these negotiations, trade, market access and quota will all be leveraged, one against the other; we have to understand and accept that, and deal with it. But that is a matter for the negotiations; what we are looking for in this debate is that the fisheries objectives are not pushed to one side. I am heartened by my noble friend’s response and her assurances. On those grounds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist and Lord Lansley

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for contributing to the short debate on this important subject. I am particularly grateful for Amendment 28, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, which would require public authorities to exercise their functions in a manner to achieve the fisheries objectives.

While I fully support the principle that our public authorities should support the achievement of the fisheries objectives, I believe that the amendment, which would place a blanket duty on all authorities, would not be suitable, as my noble friend Lady Byford so rightly pointed out. For instance, there has been no consultation with local authorities, and the new duty could lead to them having to prioritise fisheries management over the many other responsibilities that they have. A number of noble Lords have commented on those tensions.

The role and function of each public authority is set out in its implementing legislation. Each authority will vary how it exercises its functions on a case-by-case basis, and any local responsibilities to manage the 0-6 nautical mile zone will be delivered through the inshore fisheries conservation authorities. In some circumstances, elements of an authority’s function may not accord with some of the fisheries objectives. It would therefore be impractical for the Fisheries Bill to place a legal duty on such an authority. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay pointed out, the local authorities and public bodies may well not have the power to achieve these objectives legally.

Key fisheries regulators—the Marine Management Organisation and the inshore fisheries conservation authorities—also already have sustainable development duties under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and other noble Lords are reassured by this. Contrary to the intention of the amendment, its effect could also be to dilute the accountability of fisheries administrations, which is clearly established by the Bill, by spreading responsibility for the objectives more broadly across public authorities.

In answer to the specific questions from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the current scope of the functions of the relevant national authorities cover the primary fisheries management tools and activities. We appreciate that local public authorities provide an important role in the achievement of successful fisheries management. However, key activities and functions are covered by the joint fisheries statement, due to their dependency in decision-making on national authorities—for example, in confirming by-laws. The fisheries statement is also legally binding.

Clause 2(1)(c), which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked about, requires a statement on how fisheries objectives have been interpreted and proportionately applied. This will ensure a clear explanation of how the policies in the JFS meet the objectives and how their application is tailored to each specific case. It is worth highlighting that noble Lords will scrutinise the JFS before it comes into effect.

By holding fisheries administrations to account for the policies that they commit to in the statutory statements and management plans that will be created under the Bill, we are providing a strong framework for accountability that also recognises that fisheries authorities cannot unilaterally deliver on all these objectives but must to varying degrees work in partnership with industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly pointed out, fisheries administrations will be accountable for meeting the policies in the JFS, and this could be something that the Office for Environmental Protection chooses to scrutinise.

Clause 10 makes the policies legally binding. Under these objectives, all must to varying degrees work in partnership with industry, stakeholders and international partners in some cases.

I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his helpful comments. The range of objectives does present a challenge, but Clause 10 makes it clear that the policies are legally binding. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley]

I asked a question, but I do not require an answer now. In so far as the Department for International Trade, for example, is engaged in trade negotiations that might impact on fish stocks because of market-access considerations, it will do so by exercising prerogative powers. It does not have duties derived from statute. So it might be interesting to know whether the Government regard these fisheries objectives as relevant to the task that the Department for International Trade will perform.

[Lord Teverson]

I will make a point very quickly. I was slightly disappointed in the Minister’s response when she said local authorities had not been consulted in any way on this Bill. The IFCAs—which are incredibly important vehicles for the conservation of sea fish within the six-mile limit around our coast—are very much creatures of local government. Some of their members are appointed by the MMO, but they are largely local authority organisations, and are significantly funded by local authorities. I wonder whether a consultation —at least with the LGA—might have been a good thing. So I do feel some disappointment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

I think I had better write to the noble Lord in response to that question.

[Lord Lansley]

I am grateful to my noble friend. There were 14 amendments in this group, so it was not easy to tackle them all, not least since we managed to introduce them all in 18 minutes—it did not leave a lot of time for the preparation of notes on amendments. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, because the point he just made in his further intervention illustrated forcefully the point I was making. This is all absolutely fine if everybody agrees; it is when they do not agree that we want the legislation to tell us what happens. I do not think it does that yet.

My noble friend has explained that there will be a memorandum of understanding and, as we have heard, there is the 2012 concordat relating to licence conditions and how the economic link requirement is implemented and so on. I do not dispute that non-legislative means may well deliver the co-ordination between the fisheries policy authorities that is required, but it is not transparent to us now; nor is it transparent yet to the industry. That is why the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations asked, quite properly, the questions and illustrated how problems could arise; for example, on the implementation of the equal access objective.

My noble friend quite rightly challenged my drafting, but we can deal with that if we need to. It could perhaps be “statements under this Section” and not “under this Act”; we can deal with that very easily. If necessary, we can make it very clear that the independent reviewer could be resorted to by any of the fisheries policy authorities before the point at which the joint fisheries statement is made—that is just to clarify; I thought it was clear but it clearly was not. We can deal with the drafting.

The issue that we come back to is: what happens when they do not agree? I am afraid that my noble friend lapsed straight into the problem that I think we are trying to avoid, which is that the fisheries policy authorities that have devolved responsibilities will set out their policies and the Secretary of State will set out policies on reserved matters in the Secretary of State fisheries statement. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made perfectly clear, we want and the industry needs—and it will clearly be better—all the policies to be set out in the joint fisheries statement. They can be; there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that requires the Secretary of State to publish a Secretary of State fisheries statement on reserved matters. The Secretary of State can put it all into the JFS. It would be better if it were all in the JFS, but it will all get into the JFS only if there is agreement between all the authorities to this effect. But that is pretty important: remember that the reserved matters in this context include quota functions—the catch quota and effort quota—which could, in certain circumstances, completely override what might otherwise be the licensing of fishing boats by devolved authorities. If we can get it all into the JFS, it would be a better outcome.

I will happily beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I do not think that we have concluded this conversation. We need to keep this conversation going, and I hope that my noble friend will make it clear that we will—she does not need to go back to the Dispatch Box. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.