Ministers: Legal Costs

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have explained the circumstances about why the taxpayer gets involved in legal expenses. I note the noble Lord’s point.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I was there when the Secretary of State gave her statement to the Science and Technology Committee this morning and was remarkably unconvinced, particularly by the Permanent Secretary’s assertion that all the aspects of this case had been discussed with legal and technical advisers before the relevant tweet was made. I simply ask the Minister: does she think that was valid advice? Is this the way the Government think a senior Cabinet Minister should communicate with the body for which she has responsibility?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My understanding is that the legal expenditure was approved by the department’s accounting officer. That was made clear. I believe that the Permanent Secretary was there with the Secretary of State. I refer noble Lords to her statement, to all that she has done, and to the fact that she apologised to move this matter on.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think exact groupings of the regulatory area will be a judgment for the relevant Minister. The letter was trying helpfully to point out that there was the possibility of some increase in burdens in some areas, provided there were compensating decreases, because what we are trying to do, following our exit, is to implement regulations that work better for the UK, while maintaining our high standards. People seem to have forgotten that there can be problems with regulations.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I am two sentences behind the Minister in what she says permeating my consciousness, but on this business of the regulatory burden, how will we know and where will the discussion take place about the Ministers weighing up comparative regulatory burden—the apples and pears—and coming to a conclusion about what can be increased, enhanced and improved and what must go as a result? As she said, we will see statutory instruments for changes but, for things that simply drift away, get amalgamated and disappear, where do we see them and how do we judge whether the Minister has come to a good decision about comparative regulatory burden?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

To make progress, I should make it clear that Clause 15 is the main clause and that there are a number of amendments on that group, on which we can no doubt have a longer discussion, but I should like to make progress on transport.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak in support of Amendment 120— I will call it the safer-stairs amendment, as I know the Minister likes short names for amendments—to which I have added my name. I will not repeat the excellent evidence and support that has been given by several speakers already.

It is simply to say that this will potentially become more of a problem, because we are all getting older—and we in this House should know that more than anybody else. Also, because of the wonderful feeding and other benefits we have given our children, their feet are bigger. With bigger feet and advanced old age, they will become a complete and utter liability, if we continue to build the poxy little stairs, with inadequate surfaces and terrible handrails, that we see all too often in both public and private buildings. This is something that not only would the Minister welcome, but housebuilders are saying they are keen to get ahead with, but they are not willing to do it unilaterally. Housing providers, both public and social, are keen on it, as are fire chiefs and local authorities. It would not cost any more, is absolutely needed and will be needed even more.

One of the endearing things about Governments—although as a staunch Labour supporter, I find it difficult to think of a Conservative Government as endearing—is when they say, “Yes, that is a very good idea. Let’s just do it”. This is an opportunity for the Government to say that of this Bill now, to avoid deaths, injuries and life-changing circumstances, particularly for older people, which are happening as we speak. There is probably somebody falling down stairs in the House of Lords right now. Minister, if you want us to be fulsome in our praise, put this in the Bill.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, safety has a cost, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans reminded us. We have to decide where we should require money to be spent. I will talk a bit about the electrical safety and standards provisions and then come back to staircases.

I know there is a shortage of electrical experts able to carry out these assessments. Our own electrician, who is very expert, cannot do the assessments we are being asked to provide for social housing and other blocks of flats—for example, my son has a let flat, because he is an academic. The electrician says that he needs to go on a week’s course and, as a busy self-employed person, he does not have time. The lobbying organisation Electrical Safety First, which tried to get me to support Amendments 122 to 124, because I am keen on safety and looking after the consumer, seemed relatively unconcerned about this. Moreover, the amendments are wide-ranging and uncosted. As noble Lords will know, I worry a lot about the shortage of skills in the industry.

These amendments would further jeopardise housing supply, this time including social housing, and leave flats empty. Social housing landlords will be doing this sort of thing anyway post Grenfell, I think. For similar reasons, I am against the wide-ranging Amendment 121.

I am much more relaxed about Amendment 120, especially as it includes a consultation provision. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and I did the Consumer Rights Act together; she is right to think forward to the needs of an increasingly ageing population, which is exactly what this amendment does. We also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The huge potential cost to the NHS of accidents in an ageing population is also a very strong argument for action, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

This is Committee, so I am sure the Minister will reflect further, but if one can find a way—without imposing significant costs—of making staircases safer, that could be extremely useful.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for his explanation. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we know from history that trade is good for Britain and for other countries, including developing countries. I am nervous about writing too much into the Bill, as I will explain.

Noble Lords will recall from Second Reading that I very much support the Bill. Whether we have a satisfactory agreement or, less welcome, a no-deal Brexit, we need to write existing trade agreements into UK law. My noble friend the Minister has explained that all the necessary measures have not been included in previous Brexit legislation. This House rightly tries to support the orderly conduct of government and we have a duty to do so, whatever our views on Brexit. That must include preparing our statute book, either for 29 March or a later date, following a delay to Article 50 or a transition period. It would be irresponsible not to make preparations. Indeed, a lot of these measures should already be agreed, with commencement dates to be slotted in later.

I tabled this probing amendment, which is in effect an alternative to Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for two reasons. We should avoid lumbering the Bill with detailed requirements that could put in question some existing trade agreements, might encourage costly legal challenge to agreements drawing on the criteria, and might fetter our ability to negotiate sensibly with third countries, either as we move from being a member of the European Union to being a third country or during future trade negotiations.

I recognise from discussion today that new FTAs will be the subject of future legislation, so I oppose Amendment 8 overall, although my amendment derives from it. However, there is one aspect of it with which I have some sympathy: the provision that specifies that agreements should not restrict the Government’s ability to determine whether public services are carried out by the private or the public sector. The reason is that, as a Business Minister, I was peripherally involved in the EU negotiations on TTIP and we—both the UK and the EU Commission—made a mistake by not making it clear right at the beginning that the draft did not require us to limit the NHS’s ability to keep health administration and procurement in the public sector; nor, indeed, did we have it in mind to use the agreement for that purpose. The understandable emotion around the NHS and confusion on that point led to widespread opposition to TTIP and made it impossible to conclude anything ahead of the 2016 US election. I support outsourcing—I draw attention again to my entry in the register of interests—but some operations are better kept within the public sector. At any rate, the Government of the day should have choice in that matter.

I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that we will not fall into the TTIP trap again, and will support my amendment or, if it is not appropriate, explain that she understands the thrust of the point I am trying to make.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the sentiments behind most of the amendments in the group, although perhaps not the exact wording. My focus is on environmental standards, their vital nature and why they are at risk under the current government proposals.

When we discussed Amendment 4, I made the point that it is much easier to be ambitious about standards if you are part of a pack, part of a group—which we were, we were one of the 28. When we are working on our own in a more isolated position negotiating bilateral agreements, even if they are allegedly rollover bilateral agreements, it is less easy to be robust and ambitious.

Environmental standards are vital in transitioning continuity agreements, but the other point, which has already been made, is that whatever we do in the continuity agreements is a harbinger, a signal, of how we want to handle negotiations on new deals, including deals with countries such as the USA and Brazil, where we know that big environmental issues will arise, particularly in agricultural trade deals. Agricultural standards impact not only on food standards and safety and animal welfare but on the environment. We do not want the chlorinated chicken debate replicated in individual trade deals for the future.

We need the Government to use the Bill to guarantee that all free trade agreements ensure, for example, that food imports meet the UK’s environmental, food safety and animal welfare regulatory standards. That should be the case in all negotiating mandates as well as in the subsequent agreements that flow from them. Import into the UK outside a free trade agreement is much trickier, but it is still vital that the Government set out very soon that they propose to use current World Trade Organization rules to maintain standards.

I will speak briefly to Amendment 15, the non-regression proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. International trade agreements have the potential to undermine or weaken essential standards, as we know from the TTIP negotiations, which have already been mentioned. Non-regression commitments are common in existing trade agreements, and a meaningful commitment to non-regression provides a useful safety net. All international trade agreements implemented pursuant to the Trade Bill should incorporate that principle. Indeed, we need to go further. We need to widen their scope and strengthen their enforceability if they are to help deliver the Government’s promises to improve the state of the environment.

The Minister will say that we should be reassured that the Bill is only about continuity—I am rapidly coming to hate the word “continuity”—and that we are carrying across, not renegotiating conditions, but nothing in the Bill assures that. The Government have said tonight that only changes essential to ensuring continuity will be considered, but we know that when this was debated in the other place, the question was raised as to whether other Governments will want to agree deals with us without substantive changes. Indeed, Michel Barnier said a year ago that,

“partners around the world may have their own views”.

The message to the Government there is that it takes two to tango and although we do not want to renegotiate any conditions, there may be strong pressures to do so in the rollover process. Government needs to give a signal that we are absolutely clear about not negotiating any weakened standards.

The test of the Government’s mettle in all this will be how quickly we can get as many agreements as possible under our belt, both rollover and new, to demonstrate that they understand what Brexit is all about and are making real progress in trade. Although I hesitate to ascribe to the Government any dirty tactics, the reality is that, when push comes to shove, environmental standards will get the boot. We have had umpteen assurances from the Government that they are highly committed to maintaining all sorts of standards, including on the environment. The Command Paper, Preparing for our Future UK Trade Policy, said:

“The Government is fully committed to ensuring the maintenance of high standards of consumer, worker and environmental protection in trade agreements”.


Michael Gove, the Secretary of State, said:

“Let me try and state in letters that are as big or as bold or as clear as possible: we won’t be signing trade deals that mean British producers are undercut on animal welfare or environmental standards”.


The Prime Minister has made that point; indeed, today’s Statement reinforced how important environmental standards are and that they would not be compromised by the Brexit process. If we have all these assurances from government, I invite the Minister to say, “Since that’s what we really want to happen, we are going to enshrine it in this Bill”.

Solar Panels: Business Rate Exemption

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 27th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We are looking at this, and, in particular, this change to microgeneration, which has had these anomalous effects. In the past, schools have been totally exempt; now, as I have said, the rate system is coming in and biting in a way that perhaps was not intended in the first place. We are looking seriously at the impacts against this background of some doing better out of the system than others. We look forward to making some progress in this area.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Can the noble Baroness tell the House how many more changes of policy impacting on renewable energy and carbon reduction will come from the Government? We seem to have had quite a string of them, all of them rather unexpected. Perhaps they are in response to the cheaper generation issue that the noble Baroness raised, but they have certainly reduced confidence both among domestic and commercial investors and in the renewables industry. Are there many more changes to come?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I think the noble Baroness should take comfort from the signing of the agreement in Paris, the statements we have made and the comments I have made about the carbon budgets that will be put forward in due course. This Government and the last one have made enormous investments in renewables, but nobody could fault us now for looking properly at affordability and at where things can be affordable. Innovation—for instance, on solar—is making things less expensive, and then the subsidy regimes should change. However, of course we understand the need for investor confidence.