Housing Insulation

Baroness Corston Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I thank the noble Baroness for her best wishes. I am sure that confronting is not the right word. Working together for the common goal would be more appropriate—you have to start out optimistically. There were funding commitments in the Conservative manifesto. As I said earlier, we will set out the details of that funding in the Budget and the energy White Paper.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, in welcoming the Minister to his new post, I remind him that we are now supposed to save energy wherever we can under the Paris climate accord. Can he tell the House why new builders are allowed to build traditional homes? Why do they not have photovoltaic panels or tiles on the roof so that every building generates electricity?

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Baroness makes a good point about building standards. That is something we will seek to address. There have been tremendous improvements over recent years in building standards and quality; the issue is the relative cost of installing all these measures in new homes, and the price that will be reflected. However, as I said, she makes a good point; it is something that we will need to look at.

Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Baroness Corston Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

The noble Lord said that he will apologise; when will that happen?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Baroness and noble Lords opposite are having fun. I will continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I will deal with consultation when I wind up this debate after the noble Baroness and others have spoken.

[Baroness Corston]

Paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“No formal consultation has been carried”.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, there has been no formal consultation. Obviously, there have been informal discussions, as officials always have, but there has been no formal consultation by me and other Ministers. The Intellectual Property Office—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I cannot give a precise figure for those costs. My belief is that they are generally relatively minor, but I will write to the noble Lord with the details.

Beneficiaries include the NHS, which will continue to have the ability to maintain security and diversity of supply of medicines from the EEA, and to source medicines at the best price from within the EEA without being restricted by IP rights. As I mentioned, and as set out in the technical measures published in September last year, this fix is planned to be a temporary measure. The Government are considering options for what exhaustion regime is best for the UK in future while extensive research is under way. I stress that such an important decision should not be rushed. We will ensure that we have a robust evidence base and that full consultation with stakeholders is completed before any decision is made.

The instrument is extremely important to support the movement of goods and the supply of essential commodities such as medicines. It provides—

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords—

[Lord Henley]

I am going to conclude this section and then the noble Baroness may intervene. It provides clarity and legal certainty for businesses and consumers by preserving the status quo as much as possible following our exit from the EU. It is a necessary and technical fix for UK laws to prepare for our exit from the EU. I give way to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Corston]

I am grateful. The Minister has just referred to consultation. Paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Notes merely says:

“The Intellectual Property Office has undertaken information gathering with stakeholders”—


we do not know who they are—and that:

“No formal consultation has been carried”.


Why has it not been done before?

[Lord Henley]

Because there are other matters that will be more important, such as getting the consultation right on what happens should there be a deal. These are no-deal regulations and we want to get them right in the event of no deal. Obviously, we will consult as the noble Baroness wishes as we seek to get the deal right in due course. I hope I have dealt with those questions and I commend the regulation to the Committee.

Waterson Review

Baroness Corston Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We are certainly keen to get to the bottom of the issue of bots and to find the right way forward. There was consensus in committee in the other place that it was right to try to sort out the bots issue before our formal response. But as I said, the Waterson report is with us and work is in hand on this important issue. I am told that there is a proposed federal law on bots—“better online ticketing service”—although I understand the situation is a little different in the United States.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, in response to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, suggested that a form of redress could be sought through citizens advice bureaux. Given that very few councils can now afford to have a trading standards department, is the Minister aware that Citizens Advice has had huge cuts in its funding?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am of course aware of the problems Citizens Advice and trading standards have with funding; we have discussed that in this House before. One of the points Professor Waterson made in his very useful report, which we are looking at very seriously, is how we make sure there is appropriate funding for the kind of investigations we all want in this area. Interestingly, secondary ticketing is not top of the complaints we get. They are often about the primary ticket sellers, rather than the secondary market we have been debating through this report.